and did not, either, proceed to enrol the case before the criminal chamber of the Court of Appeal as required by the Rules of Procedure. Besides, it is apparent from the documents on file that , apart from the rumours in circulation, it is sequel to the summons issued by CRIET on 26 September that the Applicant was seized of a notification emanating from a judicial authority to re-open the case on which judgment had been rendered on 4 November 2016. 139. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that, for having not been filed according to the rules set by law, the Attorney General's appeal of 26 December 2016 has no effect on the Applicant. Consequently, CRIET was seized of a case that cannot be characterized as "ongoing before" the Court of Appeal and cannot be binding on the Applicant. As at the date of seizure of CRIET , the judgment that the Respondent State said has been appealed, had already acquired the authority of res judicata. 140. The Court finds that even though CRIET has the material jurisdiction to hear cases of drug trafficking, the case as concerned the Applicant, did not fall under the jurisdiction of CRIET as of the date on which it was seized. It follows therefore that CRIET had no jurisdiction to hear the case. 141. From the foregoing, the Court finds that the Applicant's right to be tried by a competent court guaranteed by Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter has been violated. ii. Alleged violation of the right to defence 142. The Applicant alleges that his right to a defence guaranteed by Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter was violated by the Respondent State in several respects, namely: the right to present evidence, receive notification of the charges, access the record of the proceedings and to be represented by counsel. I