considered all relevant matters of evidence tendered before them before arriving at their conclusions. 60. The Respondent State further asserts that the judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal reveal why the Applicants’ defence was rejected. Specifically, the Respondent State points out that the High Court accorded both the prosecution and the defence equal opportunity to present their cases and that the Applicants were convicted after the High Court had considered all matters of evidence. *** 61. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard”. Article 7 of the Charter, the Court recalls, provides guarantees that are, centrally, meant to ensure the realisation of the right to a fair trial. 62. The Court notes, however, that Article 7 of the Charter does not expressly provide for the right to a reasoned judgment. The Court further notes, however, that the Commission’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial provide for “an entitlement to a determination of their rights and obligations without undue delay and with adequate notice of and reasons for the decisions” as a component of the right to a fair hearing.23 The motivation of judicial decisions, stemming from the principle of proper administration of justice, therefore, makes it incumbent on the judge to clearly base his reasoning on objective arguments. 63. The Court also notes that in application of the above Guidelines, the Commission in Kenneth Good v. Botswana held that the right to a reasoned decision derives from the right to seize a competent national court as African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ‘Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2001), Principles A(2)(i). 23 17