0013 6 0 alone from arresting the accused persons to recording the witnesses' statements; sending the deceased's body to hospital; drawing the sketch map of the crime; and witnessing the post-mortem examination report. 76.The Respondent State on its part avers that the Applicants'allegation is misconceived and should be dismissed. lt submits that, in dealing with whether the decision to find the Applicants guilty was based on manifest error, the most important consideration should be their identification evidence. ln that respect, the Respondent State contends that the Court of Appeal undertook a fresh assessment of the identification of the Applicants including conditions of the identification, credibility of the witnesses, number of witnesses required by law to prove a fact and whether identification by a single witness can lead to a conviction. lt is the Respondent State's submission that no violation occurred since the court of Appeal held that the conditions for identification were favourable and the Applicants were sufficienfly identified at the scene of the crime. 77. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a) The right to an appeal to competent national organs agalnst 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; d) The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal." 78. The court observes that Article 7(1) of the charter guarantees the protection of fair trial related rights, which extend beyond those expressly stated in the four abovementioned sub-provisions. That provision can therefore be read in light 22 e.--