47. Based on the foregoing, conditions set out the in Article Court 56 finds of the that the Charter Application and meets accordingly all the declares it admissible. VII. MERITS 48. The Applicant alleges the violation of the right to a fair trial, right to equality before the law, right to equal protection of the law and the right to work, under Articles 1, 3, 7(1) and 26 of the Charter, Articles 2(3)(c), 14(1) and 26 of the ICCPR; Article 6(1) of ICESCR and Articles 7 and 10 of the UDHR. He further alleges that the Respondent State failed to honour its obligation to recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to them. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 49. The aspects of the right to a fair trial raised in the instant Application relate to the right to defence, the right to a reasoned Judgment and the right to be tried by an impartial court. Right to defence 50. The Applicant alleges that, for having concluded in RADA0015/13/CS that he was a contracted staff and ignored his findings as well as the contrary findings of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Supreme Court violated his right to defence. He further submits that the Supreme Court violated Article 18(3) of the Respondent State’s Constitution for having claimed that it delayed the processing of the cases under its responsibility, since neither his employer nor the Supreme communicated to him a report on his conduct and performance. RK 13 Court had