ii) Declares that it has jurisdiction; On admissibility: iii) Dismrsses the objections on admissibility of the Apprication; iv) Declares the Application admissible; On the merits: the v) Finds that vi) Finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7 (1) (b) of the alleged violation of Article Trelating to irregularities in the Charge Sheet has not been established; Charter as regards the Applicant's allegation on procedural error in respect of the statement of PW 1; vii) Finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(2) of the Charter as regards the applicability of the sentence at the time the robbery was committed; viii) Finds however, thatthe Respondent state has violated Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter as regards the failure to provide the Applicant with free legal assistance during the judicial proceedings; and consequenily finds that the Respondent State has also violated Article 1 of the Charter; ix) Does not grant the Applicant's prayer for the Court to quash his conviction and sentence x) Does not grant the Applicant's prayer for the court to direcly order his release from prison, without prejudice to the Respondent state applying such a measure proprio motu; Reseryes its decision on the Applicant's prayer on other forms of reparation % ( u 21 v