Applicants contend that this made it easier for some witnesses to identify them, and therefore, the identification parade was null, as it was not carried out following standard procedures. ii) Respondent's Submissions 81. On its part, the Respondent argues that the identification evidence was highly scrutinized by the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2006, that the Court of Appeal discarded any evidence that was not watertight, and only admitted the identification evidence that met the standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt". The Respondent submits that this allegation lacks merit and should be dismissed. iii) The Court's Assessment 82. Article 7 (1) of the Charter provides as follows: "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: 1. 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; 2. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; 3. The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; 4. The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal" 83. From the submissions of both parties, the main issue for determination is whether the identification parade that led to the conviction of the Applicants was conducted in manner contrary to the Charter or other international human rights standards. 84. From the records available before it, the Court notes that the only evidence on which the Court of Appeal relied to sustain the conviction of the Applicants by the High Court is the testimony given by an eye witness (PW 8) who claimed to have identified the Applicants during the identification parade. 13 85. The Court also notes that the witnesses who participated in the identification parade have, while providing their testimony, indicated that they did not see the 13 Appeal judgment, Court of Appeals, p. 20 23