emerges that the Applicant’s right to defend himself was communicated to him, a right he duly exercised. 86. The Court, therefore, considers that the Applicant does not provide any proof that the manner in which the proceedings before the domestic courts were conducted led to any serious miscarriage of justice, or led to a violation of the Applicant’s right to be heard. 87. In view of this, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. iii. Allegation relating to inadmissible evidence 88. The Applicant alleges that the trial court and the appellate court were wrong to convict the Applicant based on the postmortem report, that is exhibit (P1), and the sketch map, that is exhibit (P2), as they were not shown to the Applicant and/or read out to him. 89. The Applicant submits that the mere fact that counsel for the accused was given an opportunity to cross-examine those documents does not meet the requirement duly established by the Respondent State’s highest court which ruled on several occasions that failure to read out, and explain to the accused the contents of any documents before admission of that document is fatal. He contends that those documents ought to have been expunged from the record. 90. The Applicant refers to Emmanuel Kondrad Yosipati v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No 296 of 2017, where the Court of Appeal stated: It is trite principle that where in a trial held with the aid of assessors, a contested statement of an accused person is admitted in evidence, the same must be read over in court so as to enable the accused person and the assessor to understand its contents. 23