:0003q0 testimony was used as an incriminating evidence to convict him and that the Court of Appeal expunged part of her statements that were exculpatory. 47. According to the Applicant, the said contradictions and inconsistencies were the root of the matter, as they related to the evidence on the cause of death of the baby and were contrary to the medical report (exhibit 1), submitted by Prosecution Witness (PW1), the medical doctor who undertook the post-mortem examination on the deceased baby. The Applicant concludes by asserting that his conviction on the basis of the testimony provided by an unreliable witness and without consideration of the exculpatory evidence occasioned a miscarriage of justice. 48. On its part, the Respondent State disputes the Applicant's allegations and prays the Court to put him to strict proof. lt states that the Court of Appeal thoroughly assessed and determined all contradictions that were pointed ouiOy the parties during the appeal and concluded that the contradictions were minor and did not go to the root of the case. The Respondent State reiterates its earlier position that, if the Applicant believed that there were errors in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, he could have requested for a review of the judgment at the Court of Appeal or filed a constitutional petition at the High Court to seek redress for the violation of his fundamental rights. 49.|n his Reply, the Applicant reiterates that he was not required to seek a review of the Court of Appeal's judgment, because it is the same Court, the highest Court in the Respondent State, which violated his rights. He adds that he was also not required to file the constitutional petition at the High Court and that it is unlikely that the High Court, presided by a single Judge, would reverse the decision of the Court ofAppeal rendered by a panelofthree (3) Judges. 50. Article 7 of the Charter provides that: "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises \- [^'t'"'-\ - -/' 13 @