indictment of the Applicant relied on the statements of a single witness, and that no identification parade was conducted [supra, paras 162 et seq. and 186 et seq]. 192. The Court also holds that, in the instant case, the police and the judicial authorities of the Respondent State have not taken seriously the alibi argument advanced Applicant, by the regardless of the uncertainties or possible contradictions in his allegations. Implicit in the right to a fair trial is the need for a defence grounded on possible alibi to be thoroughly examined and possibly set aside, prior to a guilty verdict. In this regard, the Respondent State is not justified in invoking the state of its domestic judicial system and technicalities that may be used to subvert compliance with its international commitments in matters of human rights.2° 193. The Court further holds that by failing to further its investigations on the alibi defence raised by the Applicant, and by relying on only the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the national Judge violated the principle of equality of arms between the Parties in matters of evidence, which is absolutely vital for justice?4. 194. For all the foregoing reasons, investigation of the alibi allegation made the Court holds that the absence of detailed by the Applicant, and the non-consideration of this defence by national courts constitute a violation of his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter. 23 See also in this regard, the Court's judgment in the Matter of Tanganyika Law Society and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, 14 June 2013, paras 108-109; Commission: Communication No 212/98 Amnesty International v. Zambia, para 50. 24 See in this regard: ECHR: Dombo Beheer B.V. v. The Netherlands Judgment of 27 October 1993, para. - 52 fs Z Loe Eo AC