60. The question arising in this application is whether or not, at the time of arrest, the Applicant was informed of the charges levelled against him. It is recalled that, in making this determination, the applicable general principle of law is that he who alleges a fact shall provide evidence to prove it. 20 61. As emerges from the judgment of the District Court in proceedings against the Applicant, in his sworn testimony the Applicant submitted that, on 20 April 2013, he was put under arrest while at his home. The Applicant also confirmed that, at the time of arrest, the police informed him that there was an allegation of stealing and rape against him.21 The preceding demonstrates that the Applicant’s assertion that he was not informed of the charges brought against him is without foundation. 62. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent State violated his right to be informed of the charges brought against him. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read jointly with Article 14 of the ICCPR. B. Alleged violation of the right to have one’s cause heard 63. The Applicant alleges that the judgment of the Court of Appeal violated Articles 2, 3 and 7(1) of the Charter as it did not properly determine matters of law and fact. 64. The Respondent State disputes this allegation as vague and unspecific. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the Court of Appeal duly assessed all matters of law and facts, and found no merit to the Applicant’s grounds of appeal, which it dismissed. *** 20 Viking (Babu Seya) and Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 71; Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 129. 21 Republic v. Jackson S/O Godwin, Criminal Case No. 44/2013, Judgment of the District Court of Biharamulo, 8 April 2014, page 22. 15