requirement. Furthermore, they argued that this guarantee includes the principle of procedural equality of arms, which the Commission has described as an essential aspect of the right to a fair trial.54 To support their case, the Complainant also referred to section A.2.e of the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, which highlights the essential elements of a fair trial, such as having adequate time to prepare a case, presenting arguments and evidence, and being able to challenge opposing arguments or evidence. 55 114. The Complainant alleges multiple violations of the fir,s,tVictim's right to a fair trial. They submitted that procedural and substantive irregul :;ti'es.a1)g judicial biases marred the initial criminal proceedings. In that, the Compl ' t subfui;~~~dthat the Court made an incorrect judgmen~ ~bout ~e Victi.m's religious. . ,assu~~fg she w~s ~usli~ base~ on her father's religion, disregarding her upbringi . d b,f~lt)l)gChristian faith, This erroneous conclusion led to the nullificclti,Qnof !he marli~ge ~~tWee~tbe first and second victims, exceeding the Court's authorij;)< SeconcIly",they's:" .n. 'tted'ilia e Court also encroached on the jurisdiction of the P~t,~~malStat;u.~'sCourt ' victing" irst Victim of adultery. At the same time, secclIid IVictimvi'Wasacqui' eo?f the same charge, showing discrimination. Third Y'",; the Court indicted the fiiS~i Victim for the unconstitutional offense, of apostas ,. posing; tl},edeath penalty without any basis, dismissing the argum~~J~.,made b first Vi9P~'s defense team regarding the incompatibility of i:tpostasy'yYith fre ,~~eligiOtis't belief, thereby undermining the equality of arms:'" . <~"i ·'k .. 115. The Complain~n~, moreover, sub' d that the'Q~wt threatened the first Victim with immediate execution unless she rec . :ed her Christl'an faith and accepted Islam, even though the Respondent State' s Consti~tr~h.vrohibits executing pregnant women within two ears of giving birth. They submitted th~tthe Court even sent imams to pressure the firsf . ~AJ;;ttocomplying with the l1:I,tirnatum.When the first Victim refused, she was t id l~)a" and se~~te <r?~p~~.~1~punishment. 116, of the first victim's convictions on appeal, the itted'~lli~J"such irregularities of the first instance proceedings were ged nor "}~ttified in the Court of Appeal proceedings (nor in the subsequent ap als proceedings. They submitted that the Court of Appeal only revoked the first Victinl',~,~;convictions, bowing to the international community's intense diplomatic pressJre< on the Respondent State. TIle Complainants submitted that the Court of Appeal failed to uphold the first Victim's religious freedom (and thus the validity of her marriage). 117, Considering the above, they concluded that the conduct of the Respondent State's Courts fell well below the standard of the most basic tenets for the right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 7 of the African Charter. /.~. I~;;>';;,,~~D~\,. c, e', ,r~vocation y , ~T)\llt~\\ ~r ,( 0' . 0" ~~~\., X,~ c.) 54 Ibid, at para 119, 55 Citing Communication : <~~ ( ,~ ~ /5 :)-< 286/04, Dina Nom v, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 12 October 201~, Rara 186, . r,IJ ,~. c, • -: ,/. '" J - " ..... ZS''''''''''__'''' " 01::' t!/J ,<2:5 '" "'.J v~ (-,O,y4'K:r:-r,\:~\~~t. "<, ";/;lE E1 ~/ ~~ 1/!