0008 4 \l conviction but quashed the District court's sentence and enhanced it to a term of thirty (30) years imprisonment and twelve (12) strokes of the cane. Dissatisfied with that decision they further appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on 9 April 2003, dismissed their appeal. B. Alleged violations The Applicant submits that the Respondent State has violated Article 2 of the E Charter in that it has unlawfully imprisoned him for a non-existing offence hence curtailing his freedom of movement, association and of access to other amenities of life. The Applicant further submits that the Respondent State's conduct is in contravention of Articles 1 and 7(2) of the Charter and Article 13(6) (c) of the Respondent State's Constitution. 6 The Applicant contends that the enhancement of his sentence from twenty (20) years to thirty (30) years imprisonment by the High Court was an excessive order which violates his right to equality before the law as provided under Article 3 of the Charter. 7 The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State has also violated Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter through the High Court judgment which ordered him to be caned twelve (12) strokes. The Applicant submits that the imposition of caning violates the right to respect, dignity and integrity of a person as protected under the Charter. 8 The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent State has violated the Charter by not according him "the right to legal representation." III. o SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT The Application was filed on 16 September 2015 and was served on the Respondent State on 15 October 2015. The Respondent State was requested to file its Response within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Application. 3 sT&