61. The Court also holds that the Application does not raise any matter or issues previously settled by the Respondent State in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations or the Constitutive Act of the AU as required under Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 62. Therefore, the Court finds that the Application fulfils all the requirements set out under Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules and accordingly declares the Application admissible. VII. MERITS 63. The Applicant alleges the violation of his fair trial rights namely (A) the right to be heard, (B) the right to be tried within a reasonable time and (C) the right to defence. A. Alleged violation of the right to be heard 64. The Applicant makes two (2) claims regarding the right to have his cause heard, namely, that (i) the High Court wrongfully admitted into evidence the Applicant’s self-incriminating statement, which he retracted and (ii) the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact by failing to consider his defence that the extrajudicial statement was made under duress. 65. The Respondent State disputes both claims, and asks the Court to subject them to strict proof. With regard to the first claim, the Respondent State argues that, following the Applicant’s counsel’s objection to the admission of the self-incriminating statement as evidence, the High Court conducted a trial within a trial and determined that the Applicant made the statement voluntarily. Following this finding, the High Court admitted the statement into evidence. This finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. 18