VII. MERITS 50. The Applicant alleges the violations of the Charter in relation to the following issues, that: i. He was denied the right to be heard; and ii. His conviction was based on unreliable evidence. A. Allegation based on the denial of the right to be heard 51. The Applicant alleges that the District Court of Chato convicted him of rape and sentenced him to life imprisonment without giving him a chance to defend himself. 52. He further submits that the national courts did not make any effort to trace him after he absconded bail thereby denying him the chance to put up a defence. He thus claims that the Respondent State violated his right to be heard. 53. The Respondent State denies the allegations of the Applicant and puts him to strict proof. It argues that the Court of Appeal considered the Applicant’s arguments on appeal and dismissed them. Furthermore, that in the District Court, the trial was adjourned six (6) times to allow the prosecutors to try and trace the Applicant and his sureties, but their efforts proved futile. 54. The Respondent State buttresses its argument with Section 226(1) 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act (2002), which provides that if a trial is adjourned and the accused does not appear in the subsequent date of hearing, the court shall proceed with the trial as though the accused were present. Section 226(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act - “if at the time or place to which the hearing or further hearing is adjourned, the accused person does not appear before the court in which the order of adjournment was made, it shall be lawful for the court to proceed with the hearing or further hearing as if the accused were present; and if the complainant does not appear, the court may dismiss the charge and acquit the accused with or without costs as the court deems fit.” 8 13