Appeal shows that the Court of Appeal also considered the same and decided to uphold the High Court’s findings. In the Court’s own assessment, the insufficiency or unreliability of the evidence adduced before the High Court is not supported by the facts on record. Given that the High Court heard all the witnesses, the Court cannot, in line with its constant jurisprudence, consider the grounds invoked by the said courts unless there are manifest errors, which is not the case in the instant Application. 115. The Court also holds that the domestic courts examined what the Applicant calls circumstantial evidence and found no manifest errors warranting its intervention. Similarly, the Court notes that the High Court clearly outlined the ground on which it found that the Applicant acted with malicious intent, i.e., the Applicant did not attempt to assist the victim when he was on fire as well as her failure/refusal to offer transport to take the deceased to hospital. 116. The Court also notes that, as pointed out earlier, in the Respondent State’s system the judge is not bound by the opinion of the assessors. It is thus unable to infer a violation of the Applicant’s right to a fair trial simply because the trial judge overruled the assessors. 117. Given that the evidence on record does not reveal any manifest error(s), which occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Applicant, the Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing as protected under Article 7 of the Charter. iv. Alleged violation of the right to effective representation 118. The Applicant alleges that her State-appointed defence counsel was ineffective, which resulted in a violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. Specifically, she alleges that her counsel, before the High Court, demonstrated ineptitude by not calling witnesses to testify on her behalf. This, according to the Applicant, is a “manifest lack of effective legal representation.” The Applicant also faults the conduct of her defence 34