89. In the circumstances, the Court holds that article 41(7) of the Respondent State’s Constitution does not violate the Applicant’s right to equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 3(2) of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the Applicant’s right to have his cause heard 90.The Applicant avers that by having article 41(7) as part of its Constitution, the Respondent State has violated his right under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter. 91.The Respondent State disputes the Applicant's allegation of a violation of Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter and argues that as a sovereign State it enjoys: ... exclusive, ultimate fundamental legal Respondent and comprehensive framework. Since has the right to make all powers powers provisions of arise law-making, from the under people, its the in the Constitution or any other written law. 92. It is also the Respondent State’s argument that article 41(7) of its Constitution is protected by the doctrine of margin of appreciation. According to the Respondent State: ...given that contracting States possess different legal and cultural traditions, it is inevitable that States shall occasionally view the application of their obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights differently. 93. The Respondent State thus submits that: the doctrine of the margin of appreciation provides the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights with the means by which to permit national authorities to enjoy the freedom to apply the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in accordance with their own unique legal and cultural traditions without flouting the ultimate objective and purpose of the Charter. 25