41. The Court, therefore, finds that all the admissibility conditions have been met and that this Application is admissible. VII. MERITS 42. The Applicant alleges the violations of Articles 2 and 7 of the Charter in relation to the following allegations: i. His conviction was based on unreliable evidence; and ii. The assessment of the evidence leading to the conviction was discriminatory. A. Allegation that the conviction was based on unreliable evidence 43. The Applicant alleges that the Court of Appeal erred in its decision as it did not properly examine and evaluate the identification evidence adduced by “PW2”. He submits further that the Court of Appeal did not consider his arguments regarding the said “identification evidence” which caused a miscarriage of justice. The Applicant, therefore, alleges that the Court of Appeal violated his rights under Article 7 of the Charter. 44. The Respondent State did not file a response. *** 45. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard …”. 46. The Court reiterates its position according to which, it held that: (…) domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence, and as an international 11