which was corroborated by the evidence of PW1, one Liberius Pastory.33 For these reasons, the Respondent State contends, this allegation should be dismissed for the lack merit. *** 85. The Court observes that the issues raised by the Applicant i.e., the Respondent State’s use of repudiated circumstantial evidence to convict him without proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt relate to the right to have one’s cause heard, in particular Article 7(b) and (c) of the Charter and Articles 14(2) and Article 14(3)(e) of the ICCPR. 86. Article 7(b) and (c) of the Charter provide that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: b. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; c. The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice. 87. Article 14(2) of the ICCPR provides that: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law” 88. Article 14(3)(e) of the ICCPR, provides that: “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.” 33 At page 11/12 and 97/98 of the Court of Appeal Record also at pages 12/13 of the judgment of the High Court. 25