000797 71.The Respondent State concludes in this regard that the Applicant's allegation is an afterthought and should be disregarded, and that, the Application therefore, lacks merits and should be dismissed. 72.The Court notes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that: "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: tI c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by Counsel of his choice" 73. ln its judgment in the matter of lngabire Victoire v. Rwanda, this Court held that "an essential aspect of the right to defence includes the right to call witnesses in one's defence."16 74.|n the instant case, the Applicant claims that at both the trial court and the High Court, he requested his witnesses to be summoned. The Respondent State refutes this assertion, arguing that the Applicant 'did not give notice of any witness appearing to testify in his defence". 75.1n view of the contradictory statements, the Court can only rely on the information on record. ln this regard, the Court notes that the Applicant does not give any information on the names of witnesses that he allegedly notified the national courts to summon and when he made the request. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the Applicant made any request for the summoning of the defence witnesses and that the courts refused to grant it. 76.|n view of the above, the Court dismisses the allegation of the Applicant that the trial magistrate failed to summon his witnesses. 16 lngabire Victoire lJmuhoza v. Rwanda (Merits), g 94 18 a