111. The Respondent State maintains that the Applicant does not provide any evidence of the human rights violation she alleges. *** 112. The Court notes that although the Applicant invokes her right to liberty and the legality of offenses, the facts of the case and the record show that her allegation pertains to the failure of the Respondent State to provide her with a forum to challenge the constitutionality of the law under which she was tried and sentenced. Such a forum relates to the right to a fair trial protected under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter and 14(1) of the ICCPR. The Court will therefore consider the allegation. 113. The Court notes that Article 7(1)(a) 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 against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force. 114. The Court also notes that Article 14(1) of the ICCPR states All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. … 115. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant alleges that the absence of a Constitutional Court prevented her from mounting a constitutional challenge against Article 236 of the Penal Code, which leads her to conclude that there is no available remedy in a case such as hers. 30