117. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that the allegation lacks merit and should duly be dismissed. *** 118. The Court takes note of the Applicant’s allegation that the Court of Appeal did not consider that the Applicant was not informed about Section 194(4) and (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the defence of alibi. 119. The Court notes from the record that the Applicant in his ground of appeal to the Court of Appeal does not argue the fact that he was not informed about the provisions of the law. Instead, the Court notes that the Applicant in his grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal claimed that the two lower courts erred in law and in fact by rejecting his defence of alibi. 120. The Court notes from the record that the Court of Appeal considered this ground and found that there was “nothing suggesting or pointing to a misdirection or non-direction attributable to both Courts below when they accorded no weight to the appellant’s alibi.” 121. For this reason, the Court finds that the Court of Appeal cannot be faulted for not having considered the Applicant’s defence of alibi. Therefore, the Court finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s right to defence, provided under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to non-discrimination 122. The Applicant further alleges that the conduct of the courts in the Respondent State violated his right to non-discrimination, protected by Article 2 of the Charter. * 123. The Respondent State did not submit on this point. *** 28