conviction and sentence, which according to him, negated “his right to the presumption of innocence.” * 115. The Respondent State submits that this Court has no mandate to examine or determine whether or not the prosecution proved its case, rather its function is to ascertain whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, were fair. It is not empowered to substitute its own assessment of the facts and evidence as that is a task for the domestic courts. It avers that Article 7 of the Charter entails examination of fairness during the proceedings at all stages and not evaluation of isolated procedural defects per se. It submits that in this case, there is no evidence to indicate that the trial was not fair or that there were any procedural irregularities. 116. The Respondent State specifically asserts that the evidence produced, inevitably led to the inference that it was the Applicant and nobody else who killed the deceased, Clement Mbasa. Furthermore, both the trial court and Court of Appeal assessed the evidence and were satisfied that the Applicant was guilty. It concludes by affirming that the issue of admissibility of evidence in court is an issue which requires that the state party be accorded the margin of appreciation. *** 117. The Court notes that Article 7(b) of the Charter provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a. the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force b. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; c. The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; 32