the issue and concluded that there was no doubt that PW 1 duly identified the Applicant during the incident, as the conditions on the material day and time were favourable for a correct identification. It further avers that the domestic courts considered all relevant facts and alleged contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution case and determined that the allegations lacked merit. 64. As regards the Applicant’s contention that the evidence of a single witness (PW 1) should have been corroborated, the Respondent State avers that pursuant to Section 143 of its Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses are required to prove any fact. It accordingly submits that the fact that the Applicant’s conviction was based on the testimony of a single witness is immaterial. In addition, the Respondent State avers that the evidence provided by PW 1 did not need corroboration as the identification of the Applicant was done under favourable conditions. 65. As a result, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant was convicted and sentenced based on evidence which proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty as charged. *** 66. The Court notes that Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that 1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a. The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; b. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; c. The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; d. The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.