it is for the Applicant to prove that the conduct of the Respondent State, through its Court of Appeal, violated his right to equal protection under the law, protected by Article 3(2) of the Charter. Specifically, the Court recalls that the Applicant’s grievance is that the Court of Appeal’s failure to consider his additional grounds of appeal violated his rights. 62. The Court observes that, generally, the procedure before the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal is provided for in the Court of Appeal Rules. The Rules require any litigant to seek prior leave of the Court to argue any ground of appeal not specified in his/her memorandum of appeal. Nothing in the record before this Court shows that the Applicant did request for leave to argue his additional grounds of appeal. In the circumstances, a bare assertion that the Applicant’s rights were violated by the Court of Appeal’s refusal to allow him to argue additional grounds of appeal, without first seeking leave, is unfounded. 63. The Court thus holds that the Applicant fails to prove a violation of his rights under Article 3(2) of the Charter. His allegations are, therefore, dismissed. C. Alleged violation of the right to fair trial 64. The Applicant alleges a violation of his right to a fair trial insofar as, first, the decisions of domestic courts were based on credible evidence since his conviction was secured by disregarding evidence in his favour; and secondly, insofar as he was not afforded legal representation during domestic proceedings. The Court will address each of the alleged violations sequentially under the various aspects of the violation of the right to have his case heard and the right to legal assistance. i. Alleged violation of the right to be heard 65. The Applicant alleges that all the three domestic courts that considered his case “rendered deaf ears to the plea of the Applicant’s innocence despite overwhelming evidence that despite his arrest had nothing to do with the 16