69. The Court, therefore, finds that all the admissibility requirements have been met and that the Application is admissible. VII. MERITS 70. The Court notes that the Applicant alleges that the Respondent State has violated his right to be heard, right to legal representation, the right to bail, and right to equal treatment and equal protection of the law, in contravention of Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the Charter. 71. The Court notes that the Applicant’s contentions of violation of the right to be heard and the right to legal assistance fall within the scope of the right to a fair trial enshrined under Article 7 of the Charter. On the other hand, the Applicant’s claim of violations of Articles 2 and 3 relate to his allegation of being unfairly treated contrary to his right to equality and equal protection of the law. Furthermore, the Applicant’s allegation of denial of the right to bail pertain to Article 6 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to liberty. Accordingly, the Court will now address these allegations individually in a sequential manner. A. Allegation of violation of the right to a fair trial i. Alleged violation of the right to be heard 72. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to be heard during the trial that led to his conviction and sentence and subsequently, in the course of his appeals. He claims that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence obtained from the testimony of Prosecution Witnesses (PW I and PW 6) and Prosecution Exhibit (Exhibit 2). 73. The Applicant asserts that the domestic courts simply looked at the demeanour of these witnesses to ascertain their credibility. He also contests 18