and the witness statements, but requested a stay of the case because he was suffering from hypertension and a headache; but that the Applicant was in reality trying to delay consideration of the case for fear of the outcome of the trial. 157. The Court notes that under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, every individual shall have the right to defence, and that under Article 14(3) of the Covenant, everyone charged with a criminal offense shall be entitled “... a) [to] be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands, of the nature and cause of the charge against him; [and] b) [to] have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence ... ". 158. The Court is of the opinion that the right of the accused to be fully informed of the charges brought against him is a corollary of the right to defence, and is above all, a key element of the right to a fair trial.2° 159. The Court notes that, in the instant case, consideration of the records of the domestic judicial proceedings shows that on 26 May 1997, the defendant requested the court to forward to him the witnesses’ statements and the indictment and that on 4 July 1997, the Prosecutor informed the court that the witnesses’ statements were not available due to shortage of paper. The records again show that on 14 July 1997, the Prosecutor handed to the defendant the statement of one witness; that on 9 September 1997, the Prosecutor again informed the court that he had not been able to bring the witnesses’ statements to the accused due to shortage of stationery. It also indicates that on 17 October 1997, the accused again asked the court to forward to him the charge sheet and the outstanding witness statements but the Prosecutor was opposed to the request, arguing that he had already handed the witnesses’ statements to Counsel for the accused; and that the court ordered that, as the accused had received two witnesses’ statements, the case could proceed forthwith. 20 See in this regard: ECHR: Matter of Pélissier and Sassi v. France, Judgment of 25 March 1999, para 52; Balta and Demir v. Turkey, Judgment of 23 June 2015, para 37; Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Matter of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti (Merits, Reparation and Costs), Judgment of 6 May 2008, paras 102-109. 43 i ve Sam