110. The Court consequently dismisses the allegation of violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, read jointly with Article 14(3)(a) and (f) of the ICCPR, on the right to defence with regard to the right to be assisted by an interpreter. iii. Alleged violation of the right to be presumed innocent 111. The Applicant alleges that his conviction and sentence violate his inalienable right to a fair trial under the Charter as he was sentenced to death without adequate proof of his guilt. He submits that the only piece of evidence linking him to the crime was the statement of the wife of the deceased where she claimed that his cuts were injuries he sustained in an altercation with the deceased. He further submits that no record was kept of his wounds and that multiple prosecution witnesses did not appear in court. 112. The Applicant avers that to overcome the manifest lack of evidence linking him to the alleged murder of the deceased, the judge invoked the doctrine of recent possession against him due to his possession at the time of his arrival at the police station of a bike purportedly resembling the one previously possessed by the deceased. He submits that this was done notwithstanding his clear explanation that he had bought the bike months before the incident. It is the Applicant’s submission that both the High Court and his attorney failed in their obligations to safeguard his right to a fair trial. 113. In his reply, the Applicant also submits that his prosecution was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, namely on the written testimony of the deceased’s wife who was never examined at trial while further evidence in his favour was not considered. He further avers that reliance on the doctrine of recent possession was entirely inappropriate given that there was no effort to obtain further evidence to corroborate his explanation as to why he was found in possession of the stolen property. * 31