iv. Allegation that the grounds of appeal were not properly analysed 107. The Applicant faults the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State for failing to analyse his twelve (12) different grounds of appeal during the appeal proceedings. He claims that the Court of Appeal’s approach in boiling these twelve (12) grounds down to only one (1) ground violated his right to have his cause heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter, and that it also violated Article 3(2) of the Charter. * 108. The Respondent State disputes the allegation of the Applicant that he was denied his right to fair hearing because of combining the grounds of appeal. The Respondent State submits that combining the grounds of appeal when considering a judgment or consolidating proceedings on matters involving common questions of facts or law is not a new practice in the Respondent State or in other jurisdictions. 109. The Respondent State further states that the Court of Appeal took care to properly analyse all grounds of appeal raised by the Applicant in relation to all the particular issues and facts of the case. 110. It is for these reasons, that the Respondent State submits that the allegation lacks merit and should be dismissed. *** 111. From the record, the Court notes that the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State considered the twelve (12) grounds of appeal, but concluded that they essentially boiled down to one ground, namely “that the case for the prosecution against the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt”. The Court of Appeal then proceeded to exhaustively consider whether on the basis of the evidence on record the two courts below were justified in finding beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of armed 26