000 324 proceedings because the investigation was carried out after all trial and appellate proceedings their cases were concluded. 66.The Applicants also add that the witnesses admitted to their relatives that they made an error in identifying the true perpetrators of the crime and even offered an apology to the relatives. The Applicants further allege that the Court of Appeal's refusal to consider their application for review filed on the basis of the new evidence contravenes the provisions of the Charter. 67.The Respondent State has not responded to this allegation directly but in its submission on admissibility in paragraph 38 above, the Respondent State o maintains that the Applicants can still pursue the matter within the domestic courts by seeking an extension of time to file their application for review. *** 68.The Court observes that the right to have one's own cause heard as enshrined under Article 7 (1) of the Charter is a fundamental human right that bestows upon individuals a wide range of entitlements pertaining to due process of law, including the right to be given an opportunity to express their views on matters and procedures affecting their rights, the right to file a petition before appropriate judicial and quasi-judicial authorities for violations of these rights and the right to t appeal to higher judicial authorities when their grievances are not properly addressed by the lower courts. 69.The Court also notes that the right to have one's cause heard does not cease to exist after the completion of appellate proceedings. ln circumstances where there are cogent reasons to believe that the findings of the trial or appellate courts are no longer valid, the right to be heard requires that a mechanism to review such findings should be put in place. This is the case if there is new evidence which 21 Y