156. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant was treated with respect
and dignity while in custody. The Respondent State further submits that the
Applicant’s contention that after his arrest he was kept in restraint for five
days without any meal, is a new allegation. The Respondent State argues
that the Applicant never raised it anywhere not even in his Application on
merits before this Court. Further, the Respondent State submits that if the
Applicant would have raised it in its courts, necessary procedures would
have been taken to remedy the situation. The Respondent State, therefore,
submits that the Applicant cannot raise this new allegation and prays this
Court not to entertain this claim and dismiss the same.
157. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant was tried within a
reasonable time and that therefore the claim for compensation is baseless.
158. With regard to the moral prejudice claimed concerning the children of the
Applicant being chased from school, the Respondent State already
submitted that the Applicant failed to provide relationship between him and
his alleged children and that, therefore, the Applicant failed to substantiate
his claim and hence is not entitled to any reparations or compensation.
159. Concerning the alleged loss of the Applicant’s house, the Respondent State
submits that there is no causal link established between the alleged violation
and the alleged prejudice. The Respondent State asserts that the fact that
the Applicant had no legal representation did not occasion any miscarriage
of justice. The Applicant was given an opportunity to defend himself. The
Respondent State further states that even if the Applicant would have been
given counsel to defend him, it could have never changed the outcome to
the case, that is, the trial court would find him guilty. The Respondent State
further submits that the Applicant failed to substantiate thee claim that his
house was sold and that he did not attach any document to prove his
ownership of the alleged house and that the same had been sold. The
Respondent State therefore maintains that no reparations should be paid.
***
38