that they held no substance. Regarding the Applicant, the courts specifically highlighted that his unexplained possession of the stolen items stood as irrefutable evidence and proved his culpability beyond any reasonable doubt. It was upon this foundation that he was found guilty and subsequently sentenced to a thirty (30) year imprisonment. 108. In this regard, the Court finds nothing on record that demonstrates that the Applicant was treated unfairly or subjected to discriminatory treatment in the course of the domestic proceedings. 109. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent State violated Article 2 and Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter. C. Alleged Violation of the Right to Bail 110. The Applicant asserts that the Respondent State violated his fundamental right to liberty by detaining him from the time of his arrest, that is, 12 March 2007, until his conviction on 9 May 2008, without granting him bail. 111. On its part, the Respondent State reiterates its contention that the Applicant never requested bail during the domestic proceedings and he is raising the issue before this Court for the first time. *** 112. The Court observes that the Charter does not explicitly guarantee the right to bail in any of its provisions. However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in Article 9(3), provides that: Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other 27