153. The Court further holds that had the investigation been conducted as described in paragraph 144, the Applicant had the chances of being acquitted outright rather than on the benefit of the doubt. 154. The Court considers that the investigation as it was conducted did not allow the Applicant to organize his defence. 155. It is apparent from the case file that, at the preliminary investigation stage, the Applicant's wish that the investigation cover the entire chain of the container transport, from the point of departure to the Autonomous Port of Cotonou or be extended to other investigations of scientific nature which would have been decisive in determining the origin of the illicit product, was not taken into account. 156. The Court holds in conclusion that, having failed to meet the above requirements, the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to defence guaranteed by Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. b) Alleged violation of the right to receive notification of the charges and to access the record of proceedings 157. Challenging the proceedings before CRIET, the Applicant submits that the principle of the right to a fair trial includes the right to be timely informed of the facts and the charges to be presented at the proceedings. He alleges that in this case , he was summoned before CRIET by an act of the CRIET Special Prosecutor which indicated neither the facts nor the charges relevant to the proceedings . 158. He also states that as of 21 September 2018 up to 4 October 2018, the day of the hearing, he tried in vain to look into the file but without any chance of ever succeeding. 159. The Applicant thus submits that, given that the procedure was likely to give rise to a heavy sentence, the Respondent State deprived him of his right to prepare his defence. I