56.1n light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the instant Application fulfils all the admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules, and accordingly declares the same admissible. VI. THE MERITS ?,3,4, 5, 6, 7 (1) (c) (2) of the Charter. The Court however notes that the Applicant made 57. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent vlolated Articles 1, and 7 submissions only in regard to the violation of the right to fair trial. 58.ln the circumstances, only the allegations substantiated by the Applicant, namely, the allegations regarding violation of Article 7 of the Charter, will be examined by the Court. A) The allegation that the Applicant was charged and convicted on the basis of a deposition which does not corroborate the particulars on the charge sheef 59. ln the Application, it is contended that the trial magistrate and theAppellate Judges grossly ened in law and in fact for having taken into account the core statement of Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1), which stratement does not corroborate the particulars on the charge sheet, especially the list of the items alleged to have been stolen, their respective value and the totalestimated amount. 60.The Respondent refutes this allegation, contending that following an evaluation of the evidence presented, the trial magistrate found that the theft actually took place; that probative testimonies had established that the Applicant was indeed the person who participated in the theft, and that it was on the strength of this evidence that the Applicant was convicted. 61.lt further states that the Court of Appeal clearly indicated that the guilty verdict against the Applicant was not grounded on the doctrine of recent possession, but that "he was convicted because he along with other people, robbing the complainant"; und, nded, ln ffi 15 ./n 4 7.. I ,v/