their admission. He further filed several applications during trial including an application to challenge the violation of his rights under the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi and an application for a stay of proceedings pending his appeal. Therefore, the Court finds that the Applicant did not prove how his right to be presumed innocent was violated. 74. In view of the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter 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 regarding presumption of innocence. E. Alleged violation of the right to be notified of charges 75. The Applicant alleges that the addition of the charges of hindering burial of dead body and perjury were not competent charges, on the ground that their addition to the case flouted provisions of the Constitution of the Respondent State and the rule of law. The Applicant alleges that the way the evidence used to charge him for the additional charges was obtained contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Respondent State. The Applicant alleges that this act was a violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter read together with Article 4(1) of the 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. 76. The Respondent State did not file any response. *** 77. The Court observes that Article 7(1) of the Charter and other above cited provisions are to the effect that every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. 78. The Court notes that as it emerges from the record the charge of hindering burial of dead body is provided for under section 131 of the Penal Code, 18