and perjury is provided for under section 101 of the Penal Code of the Respondent State. 79. The Court also notes that, in accordance with section 21 of the Respondent State’s Extradition Act, a fugitive can be prosecuted for crimes other than those for which they were extradited provided that these additional offenses are lesser in severity and are based on the same facts that justify the extradition. It cannot be said therefore that, the manner in which the additional charges were instituted was arbitrary or contrary to a fair trial. As such, no miscarriage of justice to the Applicant was occasioned, who was dully afforded the right to plead to the additional charges. 80. In the circumstances, therefore, the Court finds the allegation of procedural defects in collection of evidence used to institute additional charges of hindering burial of dead body and perjury to be unsubstantiated. 81. As a consequence, the Court finds that there was no violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter as read together with Article 4(1) of the ACDEG, Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR, Article 8 of the UDHR, and Part N, Article 1(a) of the Fair Trial Guidelines with regard to the notification of the charge. F. Alleged violation of the right to reasoned court decisions 82. The Applicant alleges that his right to a fair trial regarding the right to be provided with reasons for the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decisions was violated. The Applicant claims that the Supreme Court of Appeal, as at the date of filing of this application, has not given him reasons for its decision or judgment. The Applicant alleges that this act constitutes a violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter read together with Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, Article 8 of the UDHR, and Part A, Article 2(i) of the Fair Trial Guidelines. 83. The Respondent State did not file any response. *** 19