judgments, that the case against the Applicant had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.33 89. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the evidence in the Applicant’s trial was evaluated in conformity with the requirements of fair trial and the procedures followed by the national courts in dealing with the Applicant’s appeals did not violate Article 7(1) of the Charter. The Court also finds that the assessment of the evidence by the domestic courts was not done in a manner discriminatory to the Applicant as opposed to other litigants in similar circumstances. Further, the Applicant has not provided evidence that any other law or statute applied in the proceedings involving him runs counter to the right to non-discrimination, equality before the law and equal protection of the law in violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter. 90. In light of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the manner in which the national courts evaluated the facts and evidence and the weight they gave to them does not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice to the Applicant which requires this Court’s intervention. 91. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence on record. The Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate Articles 2, 3 and 7(1) of the Charter read jointly in respect of the consideration of evidence regarding the Applicant’s conviction. C. Alleged violation of the right to defence 92. The Applicant alleges that the justice of appeal erred in law and facts by failing to observe that the defence witnesses were not summoned in contravention of Section 231 of the CPA, Cap 20 RE 2002 and Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of the Respondent State. The Applicant claims 33 Jackson Godwin v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2014, supra, pages 8-9; and Jackson Godwin v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2015, supra, page 7. 22