143. In conceding that there was indeed a long delay in the trial of Kobedi, the Respondent State argues that, such delays were occasioned by the defence and not by the State. For example, the Respondent State submits that there was a delay of up to six (6) months between July and December 2001 when Mr. Brain Spilg SC was appointed pro deo to represent the victim because the victim rejected several pro deo counsels including Mr. Joina and insisted on having Mr. Brain Spilg SC appointed pro deo to represent him. Again, it argues that there was AC HP R another delay of up to sixteen (16) months between November 1999 and July 2001 in the trial because no opposing affidavits were filed on behalf of the victim. It is contended by the Respondent State that because these delays were due in part by the indolent acts of Kobedi and his lawyers, they cannot amount to a contravention of the fair trial rights guaranteed under Article 7 (1) (d) of the African Charter. 144. The Respondent State contends that, in refusing the new evidence from the Complainants the Court was using tried and tested principles of law and was more than sure that this new evidence would not change the out come of the case if a retrial was ordered. In arguing that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to order a retrial, the Respondent State submits that the due process rights of the victim protected under Article 7 of the African Charter was therefore not violated in anyway. The Commission’s Decision on the Merits 145. The Respondent State had raised as a preliminary issue challenging any consideration by the African Commission of any further submissions filed by the Complainants in terms of Rule 119 (2) and (3) of the African Commission‟s Rules of Procedure. They argue that by virtue of Rule 119(2), only the Respondent State is required to make submissions after the African Commission‟s decision on 38