A. Alleged violation of the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law 57. The Applicant alleges that the Appeal Court upheld his conviction, notwithstanding the absence of key particulars of the case, in violation of Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter. He submits that the said court completely failed to take into account the importance of a key piece of evidence in the case, namely the issue of visual identification by PW 1, insofar it was not clearly established that the assailants were identified in circumstances and weather conditions conducive to correct and reliable identification. 58. He further alleges that the Court of Appeal did not consider all of his grounds of appeal, but instead grouped them into seven grounds, thereby depriving him of his rights. 59. The Respondent State asserts that the Court of Appeal convicted the Applicant on the basis of a corroborated and retracted statement and then found that the offence was proven against the Applicant. 60. The Respondent State further submits that the Court of Appeal did address the issues of visual identification. It states that on page 5 of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the said court stated that it was satisfied that the identification was made under adequate conditions and that PW3 knew the Applicant prior to the date of the incident. It also took into account the distance between the witness and the Applicant, and the fact that the witness severed the Applicant's hand. It found that the incident took place over a fairly long period of time, which leaves no doubt about the identification. *** 61. Article 3 of the Protocol provides that: 1. Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. 15