69. The Applicant concludes by relying on the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial summary or arbitrary executions,26 which states that fair trial guarantees in death penalty cases must be implemented in all cases without exception or discrimination, as reiterated in the jurisprudence of the Human Right Committee.27 He avers that the proceedings by which he was sentenced to death did not meet the criteria of Article 7 or even rise to the level of basic fairness. These breaches in turn render the death penalty a violation of his right to life. * 70. The Respondent State responds cumulatively on all the three (3) issues raised by the Applicant. It asserts that Article 7 of the Charter is concerned with whether or not the Applicant was afforded ample opportunity to state his case and to contest the evidence that he considered false, and not whether the domestic courts reached the correct decision. 71. The Respondent State further avers that the mandate of the Court is to determine the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. It submits that all the requirements under Article 7 were met because: the Applicant was presumed innocent, he was provided with legal representation in both trials at the High Court and before the Court of Appeal, he was tried and convicted by an impartial and competent court of law for an act that constituted a legally punishable offence at the time he committed the offence; he was sentenced in line with the laws of the land, and; accorded the opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. 72. Citing the European Court case of Gafgen v. Germany, the Respondent State avers that “As the applicant’s defence rights and his right not to incriminate himself have likewise been respected, his trial as a whole must be considered fair”. It further argues that even if there were any irregularities in the procedures, they were “saved” by section 387 of the Criminal 26 Report of the Special Rapporteur, UN Document/CN.4/2002/74, (Jan 9, 2002), paragraph 119. Johnson v. Jamaica (Human Rights Committee), Communication No. 588/1994, (March 22, 1996), paragraph 8.8-8.9; Reid v. Jamaica, (Human Rights Committee), Communication No. 588/1994, (March 22, 1996), paragraph 11.5. 27 20