iii. He did not have legal representation proceedings and this violated throughout the trial and appeal his right under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. In the first case, Criminal Case No. 95/2003, he was charged with the offence of armed robbery under Section 285 of the Penal Code which provides for a sentence of fifteen (15) years upon conviction, yet he was sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment. under Article 13(6)(c) of the Respondent This violated his rights State’s Constitution which proscribes the imposition of a sentence that was not in force at the time of commission of the crime. He immediately filed an appeal in 2006, against his conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 194/2004. This appeal was heard in June 2007 but the judgment remained pending for almost a decade despite his sustained follow-up efforts. The Respondent State's failure to finalise his appeal for such a long time therefore violated his rights under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. vi. He was kept in isolation during the trial and appeal proceedings, and this violated his right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Article 3 of the Charter. vii. The Respondent State subjected him to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in contravention of Article 5 of the Charter since he was beaten up by its agents when he was first arrested and he was also denied medical care while in custody.