56. It was on these grounds that the Supreme Court decided that the Applicant was a contracted staff and RS/REV/AD/0003/15/CS not a civil servant.’4 of 27 January 2017, mentioned first decision, the Supreme Moreover, issued in decision No. in review of the above- Court re-examined the Applicant's claims on the basis of standards that he himself invoked.'® 57. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Applicant's right to defence has not been violated given that all the evidence was duly examined. 58. With regard to communication of the report on the Applicant's performance, the Court recalls that the right of the accused to be duly informed of the charges levelled against him goes in tandem with his right to defence.*®° The Court notes in on particular that access to evidence and other information record is a fundamental component of the right to defence.'” 59. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Judgments of both the High Court and the Supreme Court made reference to, and considered the complaint of, non- disclosure of the Applicant's misconduct arising from his slow handling of the files under his responsibility, thus tarnishing the image of the company.'® The Court notes, in particular, that the Supreme Court having relied on the right invoked by the Applicant himself, concluded, with reasons, that the employer is not bound to explain the reasons for the termination of a contract during the probation period." ‘Ibid 14-17 15 See Judgment No. RS/REV/AD/0003/15/CS of 27/1/2017 §§ 6-13. 16 See Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 158. See also Pélissier and Sassi v. France, ECHR, No. 25444/94 of 25/3/1999, § 52; See also Yvon Neptune v. Haiti (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 6/5/2008, §§ 102-109 1” See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ‘Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa’ (2001) Guidelines N(2)(d), N(2)(e)(2) (1-5); International Pen and Others (on behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v. Federal Republic of Nigeria Communications 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 and 161/97 (2000) AHRLR 212 (ACHPR 1998) §§ 99-101; Jean-Marie Atangana Mebara v. Republic of Cameroon, Communication 416/12 (18th Extra-ordinary Session, 29 July to 8 August 2015) §§ 107-109. 18See Judgment RAD 0157/10/HC/KIG of 25/01/2013 §§ 5-7; Ruling No. RADA 0015/13/CS of 08/11/2013, §§ 18-28. 18See Ruling RADA 0015/13/CS of 08/11/2013 §§ 24-26. 15