77. The hearing position of the Applicant as stated during the public is that “there is no allegation that the Applicant makes pursuant to having Counsel assigned to him that the Applicant did not himself make, albeit without the sophistication that comes with having Counsel.” In other words, the Applicant’s rejoinder merely refined the Applicant’s application which followed from his being represented by Counsel. The Applicant stated that ‘ ... in total, the fourteen pages that the Applicant, on his own, without the benefit of Counsel filed, contains all the allegations and all the complaints that he has made that are merely reiterated in the Rejoinder. In fact, apart from perhaps a change of language, the only thing the Rejoinder articulates that was not there in the earlier fourteen pages, are the specific Articles of the African Charter alleged to have been violated’. 78. The Court notes that the Applicant’s Reply to the Respondent's Response largely restated the Applicant’s position as enunciated in the Application. Counsel for the Applicant merely links the alleged violations with the relevant articles of the Charter. The Application alluded to alleged violations of the right to fair trial as set out in Article 7 of the Charter and Counsel merely expressly stated the same the Reply. The Reply to the Respondent’s Response in alleges violations of Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7(1) and 9(1) of the Charter. The Court finds that the Applicant’s Reply to the Respondent's Response linked more precisely with the Charter, the rights that the Applicant alleged were violated, and that it did not introduce new issues.