00032 77 .The Court notes that the right to a fair trial, in particular, the right to defence under Article 7 (1) requires that an accused person must be given the opportunity to take part in all the hearings in respect of his trial, and to adduce his arguments and evidence in accordance with the adversarial principle.ls This is an inherent component of the basic precept of equality of arms, which demands that both the accused and the prosecution must have the possibility to present in an equal manner their case and examine or cross-examine the evidence proffered by the other party. 78.1n the instant case, the Applicants generally allege, without indicating the violation of a specific right, that they were isolated during the procedures and the decisions of the domestic courts. ln their submissions however, they did not clearly state how o and why they were isolated in the domestic proceedings. As submitted by the Respondent State, the Applicants indeed participated in all the trial and appeal proceedings and they were also represented by a lawyer at the District Court and at the High Court. The Court observes in this regard that, nothing on record indicates that the Applicants were kept in isolation or isolated in any manner during their trial and appellate proceedings. 79.The Court is therefore of the view that the allegation that the Applicants were isolated during domestic proceedings is not founded and accordingly, holds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1) of the Charter. O B. Allegation of violation of the right to equality before the Iaw and equal protection of the law 80.The Applicants allege that both their conviction on the basis of a mistaken identity and the refusal of the Court of Appeal to review their conviction to rectify the wrong citing the reason of filing the application of review out of time contravene Articles 15 Application No. 020/2016. Judgment of 2110912018. Anaclet Paulo v United Republic of Tanzania, g 81 24 j \ Y I