the appeal proceedings. In the circumstances, the Court finds his allegations unfounded. 117. In view of all of the above, the Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter. E. Alleged violation of the right to enjoy family life 118. The Applicant contends that the Respondent State violated his right to family by separating him from his family through a wrongful conviction. * 119. The Respondent State submissions did not address this allegation. *** 120. Article 18 of the Charter, in so far as is material, provides as follows: 1. The family shall be the natural unit and basis of society. It shall be protected by the State which shall take care of its physical health and moral. 2. The State shall have the duty to assist the family which is the custodian or morals and traditional values recognized by the community. 121. The Court notes that the Applicant’s allegations on this point stem from his conviction and subsequent incarceration. Given that his separation from his family is due to his conviction, which this Court has found no reason to set aside, the Court finds that there is no basis for holding that the Respondent State violated Article 18 of the Charter. 29