52. Citing the Tanzanian case of Oswald Manugula v. Republic, the Applicant avers that he was not charged with an offence recognised at law because of lack of specification in the charge sheet. 53. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant was charged with rape at the District Court and should, therefore, have raised the defective nature of the charge sheet on appeal to the High Court and Court of Appeal. 54. Furthermore, the Respondent State argues that since this Court is not a court of appeal for criminal matters, the Applicant is proscribed from raising the issue of the charge sheet before this Court. *** 55. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that “(e)very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard …” 56. In its jurisprudence, the Court has interpreted Article 7(1) of the Charter10 in light of the provisions of Article 14 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as “ICCPR”)11 which provides that: “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law ...”. 57. In the instant case, the record before this Court shows that the Court of Appeal found that the initial charge sheet was defective as the Applicant was charged with rape rather than statutory rape defined as rape of a girl 10 11 See Jonas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 64. The Respondent State ratified the ICCPR on 11 June 1976. 13