67.In view of the above, the Court is of the view that the manner in which the domestic courts examined the evidence as regards the proof of the offence that the Applicant was justice. Consequently, charged the Court with did not constitute holds that the alleged a miscarriage violation has of not been established and accordingly dismisses it. iv. Alleged failure to review decisions of lower courts 68. The Applicant alleges that the appellate courts based their decisions on the findings of the lower courts without reviewing them, thus violating his right to have his sentence reviewed by appellate courts. The Respondent State disputed the Applicant's allegation generally without substantiation. ek 69. The Court notes that the right to have one’s case heard by a higher court is provided for under Article 14(5) of ICCPR which provides that: "Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law." 70.The Court notes that Article 14(5) of ICCPR, cited above, empowers appellate courts to review contested decisions, which they may or may not decide to uphold. In the instant case, the record indicates that the High Court and the Court of Appeal reviewed the decisions of the lower courts and decided to uphold them. 71.The Court further notes that the Applicant does not demonstrate how the upholding of the decisions of the lower courts by the appellate courts constitutes a violation of his right to appeal. 72. The Court therefore finds that the alleged violation has not been established and accordingly dismisses it. 19