52. The Court also holds that the Application does not raise any matter or issues previously settled by the Respondent State in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union as required under Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 53. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application fulfils all the requirements set out under Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules and accordingly declares the Application admissible. VII. MERITS 54. As indicated earlier, although the Applicants did not cite any specific provisions of the Charter, all their allegations relate to the right to a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter. 55. According to the Applicants, their right to fair trial was violated due to the following: the Court of Appeal’s failure to determine the exact weight of the Cannabis Sativa tendered in evidence during their trial (A); the alleged failure to determine if indeed the Applicants were caught with the Cannabis Sativa (B); the three (3) months delay to send the impounded Cannabis Sativa for examination by the government chemist (C) and the absence of a supreme court in the Respondent State (D). 56. The Court will proceed to examine each of the Applicants’ contentions to determine if the right to a fair trial was infringed upon or not. A. Alleged violation due to failure to determine the exact weight of the impounded Cannabis Sativa 57. The Applicants aver that the Respondent State failed to determine the exact weight of the Cannabis Sativa which had been tendered in evidence during their trial, including the type of bags in which it was contained. According to 15