delay, of the detainee’s arrest, and by not informing him of his consular rights as provided for under Article 36, paragraph 1(b), of the Convention.29 88. Accordingly, the Court holds that by failing to inform the Applicant of his right to consular services, the Respondent State denied him the opportunity to seek for consular assistance to facilitate his defence, thereby violating Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 36(1) of the VCCR. iii. Allegation relating to the failure to consider evidence 89. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State did not consider issues of evidence concerning: the inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and evidence adduced by the prosecution but simply relied on circumstantial evidence adduced by the victim’s family members. 90. The Applicant further alleges that the evidence adduced by PW1, is devoid of merit because, the medical examination report (PF3) as reflected in exhibit P1 is dated 3 November 2010 and yet the alleged rape took place on 4 November 2010. He avers that the evidence adduced and corroborated by the family members at the domestic courts, was circumstantial. The Applicant avers that the medical examination report was expunged from the record at the request of the prosecution, however the courts should have considered the evidence of PW5 (Doctor) that seemed to indicate that there was no rape. 91. The Applicant also avers that the age of the victim was not supported by any documentary evidence such as a birth certificate and yet this was a crucial matter that was overlooked by the courts since they did not consider the demeanour of the victim, before and after the rape. He asserts that the sexual intercourse was consensual and there was no rape as alleged by the victim’s family. He further asserts that the victim succumbed to family pressure to categorise the sexual intercourse as rape. 29 Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Judgement, I.C.J Reports 2019, p. 418. 24