robbery was committed during the night of 29 July 1999 and that the offence was committed by the Applicant. 112. The Court considers that the Applicant did not provide any proof that the manner in which the Court of Appeal conducted the appeal proceedings and, in particular, by boiling the twelve grounds of appeal down to one general ground, led to any serious miscarriage of justice or led to a violation of the Applicant’s right to be heard. 113. The Court, therefore, considers this allegation baseless and finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter, nor the Applicant’s right to equal protection of the law, protected under Article 3(2) of the Charter. v. Allegation relating to the defence of alibi 114. The Applicant alleges that the Court of Appeal failed to consider that he had no legal representation and that he was not informed about Section 194(4) and (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the defence of alibi, contrary to his right to defence, protected under Article 7(1)(c). * 115. The Respondent State challenges the allegation of the Applicant. It submits that it was the obligation of the Applicant to be aware of the said legal provision and to abide by it. The Respondent State further states that the provision does not oblige or direct the Court to furnish the Applicant with the knowledge of a certain law applicable in the Respondent State. 116. The Respondent State further maintains that the decision of the Court of Appeal not to consider the defence of alibi could not have resulted into any unfair decision, because the evidence on record linking the Applicant to the alleged armed robbery is vast. 27