there were contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses which the High Court and Court of Appeal should have noted and which should have resulted in his acquittal. 47. The Applicant also argues that the evidence adduced in his defence at the High Court was rejected without reason. He further argues that the exhibit tendered by the prosecution based on the testimony of Prosecution Witness 3, which was relied upon to convict him, should have been found inadmissible as it had not been marked as evidence. Consequently, the Applicant argues that the national courts discriminated against him. 48. The Respondent State contends that the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Applicant killed the victim with intent when he assaulted him with a machete targeting the most vital part of the victim’s body, the head. 49. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant was provided with free legal assistance during his trial and was, therefore, not discriminated against. Furthermore, it contends that both the prosecution and defence witnesses were given the opportunity testify and the High Court together with the assessors considered all the evidence. *** 50. The Court notes that although the Applicant relies on Article 2 of the Charter to support his alleged violation, his claim bears on his right to have one’s cause heard, and more aptly falls under Article 7(1) of the Charter. 51. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides: “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard…”. 52. This Court notes in line with its established jurisprudence “... that a fair trial requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible 12