000 221 evidence that those in the same or similar situation as he was, have been treated differently. 72.1n the instant case, the Court holds, as a fundamental rule of law, that whoever makes an allegation must adduce evidence thereof. ln this matter, the Applicant does not provide evidence that persons who were in the same or similar situation as himself had been treated differently. 73. Consequently, in the absence of evidence by the Applicant as to any differential treatment, the Court finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant's right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. C. Alleged violation of the right to a fair tria! 74.The Applicant made several allegations of violation of his rights as provided under Article 7(1)(a) and (c) and (2) of the charter, which stipulates as follows: "Article 7: (1) Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a) The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; b) ... c) The right to defence, including the right to be defended by Counsel of his choice; (2) No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at the time it was committed..." i. Alleged violation of the right to defence 75.The Applicant submits that the proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal were conducted in his absence in violation of his right to be heard by a court as contemplated in Article 7(1Xa) of the Charter. 18 E