Article 8 of the UDHR, Part A, Article 2(j) and Part C, Article (b)(i) of the Fair Trial Guidelines regarding right to be heard by the MSCA; iv. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the right to fair trial protected under article 7(1) of the Charter as read together with Article 4(1) of the ACDEG, Article 8 of the UDHR, Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and Part A, Article 2(h) of the Fair Trial Guidelines regarding the Applicant’s conviction; v. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the right to fair trial Protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter as read together with Article 8 of the UDHR, Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and Part A, Article 2(e) of the Fair Trial Guidelines, with regard to being given adequate opportunity to challenge opposing evidence; vi. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the right to fair trial protected under Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter as read together with Article 11(1) of the UDHR, Article 14(2) of the ICCPR and Part N, Article 6(e) of the Fair Trial Guidelines with regard to the right to be presumed innocent; vii. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the right to fair trial protected under Article 7(1) 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 be notified of the charge; viii. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the right to fair trial protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter as 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 with regard to be given reasons for court decisions. On reparations ix. Dismisses the Applicant’s prayers on reparations. 23