2007. It was only after the filing of this second appeal to the Court of Appeal that, on 28 June 2007, four (4) years and six (6) months after first requesting for the record of proceedings High Court (Criminal Appeal received the record. Number of the appeal at the 82 of 1998), the Applicant However, on 15 October 2007, the Court of Appeal struck out Criminal Appeal Number 217 of 2007 on the basis that the Notice of Appeal was unsigned and was filed out of time. 59. On 7 February 2008, the Applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application at the High Court seeking leave to file his Appeal out of time. This application was subsequently granted and on 13 June 2008, the Applicant filed a new appeal to the Court of Appeal vide Criminal Appeal Number 230 of 2008. This appeal was dismissed on 29 May 2009 on the basis that the prosecution had proven the case against the Applicant in the original criminal case. The Applicant represented himself throughout these that the charges processes, despite the fact against him were serious offences and carried a heavy custodial sentence and his requests for pro bono legal counsel were not responded to. 60. Regarding the Respondent's contention that the Applicant should have applied for a constitutional petition to vindicate his rights under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, the Court finds that the Applicant was not under an obligation to do so. The alleged non-conformity by the trial court, with the due process, with its bundle of rights and guarantees, formed the basis of his appeals to the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decided on the Applicant's appeal with finality therefore Court in the Respondent State. he accessed GH Mn the highest 25