B. Alleged violations 9. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to have his cause heard under Article 7(1) of the Charter. Specifically, he alleges the following violations: i. That he was not tried within a reasonable time, contrary to article 7(1)(d) of the Charter, as he spent four (4) and a half years in prison before his trial case was concluded. ii. That he was not granted legal representation, contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. iii. That the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State did not properly examine and evaluate the evidence in the appeal proceedings, contrary to his right to have his cause heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. iv. That the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State did not analyse the Applicant’s twelve (12) different grounds of appeal during the appeal proceedings and instead boiled them down to one ground only, contrary to his right to have his cause heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter and which was also in violation of Article 3(2) of the Charter. v. That the Applicant, in the absence of legal representation, 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). 10. 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. 11. The Applicant also claims that the prison sentence of thirty (30) years meted on him was patently excessive and constituted an inhumane and degrading punishment in violation of Article 5 of the Charter. 4