115. At the Public Hearing, the Respondent State further explained that the Applicant was not convicted on the basis of any statement made at the police post, but rather on the testimony of a witness, and therefore that his Application should be dismissed as unfounded. 116. The Court recalls that according to Article 7 of the Charter: "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises... c) the right to defense, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice”. 117. The Court notes in the instant case that the Respondent State refutes the allegation that the Applicant was not informed of his constitutional rights, but was unclear as to whether he was afforded the right to express himself and to make a written statement to the police. 118. As regards the issue of a possible deposition by the Applicant before the Police at the time of this arrest, the records before the national courts, as submitted to the Court by the Parties, show that during the pleadings before the trial magistrate, the Applicant complained, among other things, that the Police did not inform him of the reasons for which he was detained, the offence of which he has been accused and that there was no trace of his statement to the police in his records. In the circumstances, the Court cannot but presume that the Applicant’s right to defend himself by submitting a written statement to the police has not been respected by the Respondent State. 119. Regarding the allegation that the Applicant at the time of his arrest, was not informed of his constitutional rights, the records before the national courts show no trace of a police report detailing such information. Consequently, the Court finds that the Applicant’s right to be informed of his constitutional rights was not respected by the Respondent State. 120. On the allegation that the Applicant was, upon arrest, not afforded the assistance of a lawyer, the records show that the Applicant represented himself in court on 14 April, 24 34 Si Nb — Co Gy SO