the prosecution subsequently proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Applicant was thus convicted and sentenced in absentia but was then offered an opportunity to explain his absence during the subsequent hearings, when he was arrested two (2) years after his sentencing, in accordance with section 226(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (2002).12 Nevertheless, he failed to convince the trial judge to vacate the conviction and reopen his case, thus, his conviction was upheld. 60. Therefore, the trial court and the appellate courts complied with fair trial standards as required by the Charter. 61. Consequently, the Court finds that the conduct of the Applicant’s trial does not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice to the Applicant. The Court therefore dismisses this allegation. B. Allegation based on the evidence relied upon to convict the Applicant 62. The Applicant argues that he was convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence as the victim of the offence did not testify. He argues that the evidence adduced by Prosecution Witness 1 (hereinafter referred to as “PW1”) was not corroborated. He also challenges the voir dire proceedings, arguing that it did not follow the procedure as prescribed by law. 63. The Respondent State contends that PW1’s testimony was not based on hearsay rather, it was found to be credible by the national courts as it provided a concise account of what had transpired. 64. With regards to the voir dire, the Respondent State submits that the magistrate duly followed the procedures by recording the questions and answers of the voir dire examination and findings. Furthermore, that the victim was disqualified from testifying at the voir dire and therefore the trial 12 Supra, note 9. 15