000320 3(1)and (2)ot theCharter.TheApplicantssubmitthattheCourtof Appeal should have applied not only the Charter but also Article 1O7A (2) (c) and (e) of the Respondent State's Constitution to allow their application for review as the victim was paid compensation by the real perpetrators under the aegis of the local authority. 81.On its part, the Respondent State denies the allegation and contends that the Applicants should be put to strict proof thereof. The Respondent State indicates that its Constitution contains provisions similar to Article 3 (1 ) and (2) of the Charter and the rights enshrined therein are therefore duly protected. The Respondent State submits that the Applicants have not showed how their rights in the said o provisions were infringed upon to the extent that they have been so aggrieved as to file the instant Application before the Court to seek remedy. 82.The Respondent State avers that, in the course of their trial and appeals, the Applicants had a lawyer of their own choice and they never raised the issue of discrimination during those proceedings, rather they raise the claim of unequal treatment for the very first time before this Court. The Respondent State argues that the Applicants therefore enjoyed the right to defend themselves and to file theirfirst and second appeals and they were not subjected to any wrong procedure in that regard. The Respondent State reiterates its position that the Applicants could have had the chance to apply for review of their conviction, if only they sought o an extension of the time to file the application for review. B3.The Respondent State further contends that Article 1O7A (2) (c) and (e) of its Constitution require national courts to deliver justice in civil and criminal matters in accordance with the laws, which its Courts have duly done. According to the Respondent State, the Applicants have not shown how the Respondent State has breached these provisions of the Constitution. 25