00039? 56. On its part, the Respondent State disputes the Applicants' allegation and submits that the issue of visual identification was analysed and determined by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, according to Respondent State, thoroughly examined the issue and concluded that the evidence proffered by the witnesses was credible enough to sustain the Applicants'conviction. The Respondent State emphasised that the witnesses testified the truth and there was nothing perjured or concocted in their testimony, the Applicants' allegations lacks merit and, as such, should be dismissed. 57.|n their Reply, the Applicants submit that the Respondent State's argument that the matter of their identification was analysed and concluded by the Court of Appeal in one procedure but the other procedure to determine whether their o identification was credible was perjured, concocted and contradictory. *** 53.Article 7 (1) of the Charter stipulates that: "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) d) o The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal." 59. The Court notes that "a fair trial requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular, a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence".1o 10 tbid, s 174. 18 kwqf ( <.J w' ..