0002 1g 81.The Court reiterates that the right for the Applicant to have his cause heard requires that he should be entitled to take part in all proceedings, and to adduce his arguments and evidence in accordance with the adversarial principle. However, the individual as was the case here, has the right to choose whether or not to take part in proceedings, provided this waiver is unequivocally established.l2 82. The record before this Court indicates that the Applicant took part in his trial before the District Court and the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. ln contrast, when the Parties were summoned for the hearing of the appeal before the High Court, the Applicant and his two co-accused reportedly indicated that they had no intention to appear - a statement which the Applicant did not challenge given that, in his Reply, he had stated that he had taken note of the Respondent State's observations in this regard. 83. The Applicant having refused to appear before the Court, the Court in conclusion holds that the hearing before the High Court in the absence of the Applicant does not constitute a violation of his right to have his cause heard. 84. On the Applicant's allegation that he was not heard on account of the Court of Appeal adjudicating on the matter without the original record of proceedings, the Court holds that whereas, in every procedure, original documents constitute crucial and precious evidence in the determination of a case, such that the non-existence of such documents can cast serious doubt on the fairness of the case, the fact remains that it is possible to reconstitute the whole record or parts thereof. 85. ln the instant case, it is apparent from the records before this Court that in order to lodge the Applicant's appeal at the Court of Appeal, his case file was reconstituted from the High Court's Judgment and the notes taken at the hearing before that Court. The Applicant challenges the authenticity of the reconstituted record without proof as to how the reconstituted elements lack credibility. Sejdovic v. ltaly no. 56581/00, S 39, ECHR 2004-ll; or poitrimot v. France no. j4O32tgg, S33, ECHR 993-il 12 1 20 Y-,f\"q *-7- S