48. In the instant Application, it emerges from the record, that there is no evidence in support of the allegation that the High Court’s Registrar failed to prepare the appeal record, and to send it to the MSCA. The Court notes that the Applicant’s appeal on preliminary issues was heard in the MSCA, and which gave its ruling on 22 July 2020.8 The MSCA could not determine the said appeal without the records of appeal being filed. Consequently, the Court finds that this allegation is unfounded. 49. In relation to the failure of the High Court to grant stay of proceedings pending the determination of the Applicant’s Appeal to the MSCA on preliminary issues, the Court notes that the MSCA, in its ruling, dismissed the application on preliminary issues, since the Applicant did not show what irreparable damage, and injustice he would suffer if the proceedings were not stayed.9 Therefore, it cannot be said that the Applicant’s right to be heard was breached at any stage of the domestic proceedings. 50. As a consequence of the above, the Court dismisses the alleged violation of Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter as read together with Article 8 of the UDHR, Part A, Article 2(j) and Part C, Article (b)(i) of the Fair Trial Guidelines regarding the Applicant’s right to be heard by the MSCA. B. Alleged violation of the right not to be convicted based on unreliable evidence 51. The Applicant alleges that the judgment of the High Court, which was upheld by the MSCA, was not based solely on evidence presented to the trial court, which made up some of the evidence by considering facts that were not stated by witnesses. The Applicant also avers that the High Court’s judgment, as affirmed by the MSCA, was based on fraudulent documents described as ‘‘call logs’ but they were not and that there were several procedural defects on how the evidence adduced by the prosecution was 8 Misozi Charles Chanthunya v. The Republic, MSCA Criminal appeal No 2 of 2020 (Malawi Supreme court of appeal) (ruling) (22 July 2020). 9 Ibid. 13