VII. THE MERITS 54. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State has violated Articles Articles 2,3,4,5,6,7 (1Xc) andT (2) of the Charter. 1, The Court however notes that the Applicant dwelt only on violations of Articles 1 and 7 of the Charter which relate to rights, duties and freedoms, and the right to a fair trial, which this Court will now examine. A. Alleged violations of the right to a fair trial 55. The Applicant raises several claims that relate to the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial which reads as follows: "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 of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; (b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; (c) the right to defense, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; (d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal 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. punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender." i. Allegation relating to the defective charge sheet 56 The Applicant complains of procedural defects relating to the Charge Sheet arguing that the courts relied on the statement contained in the "statement under caution,"tendered as Exhibit P7. which he contests, alleging that it was obtained contrary to Sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Procedure Act and, consequenly, that the charge sheet was defective. ( 14 s