issue of conflict of interest, asking the Applicant to substantiate and prove his allegations; and then make a formal decision on the issue. As the judge did not take any of these actions, but merely chose to proceed with the trial, the Court holds that the Respondent State has violated the right of the Applicant to a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter. As the dictum goes, “justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done'®”. D) The allegation that at the time of his arrest and detention at the police station, the Applicant was not afforded the right to defend himself and to be assisted by a lawyer 112. In his Application, the Applicant complains that, upon his arrest, he was not afforded the right to express himself; to make a written statement to the police; to call a lawyer and to be assisted by him; and that the absence of a lawyer led to injustice, thus denying him his constitutional rights. 113. In his Reply, the Applicant argued, in that regard, that during his detention at the police post, his fundamental rights were neither read to him nor brought to his attention and this was in violation of the law. 114. In its Response, the Respondent State disputed the allegation that the Applicant was not informed of his rights. It asserted that he was, in particular, remain silent and his right to consult a lawyer, a relative or friend, in accordance with Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code [para 44]. The informed of his right to Respondent State further maintained that the Applicant must provide full proof in support of his allegations. 15 R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep; The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002, Value 3.2; United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors 1990 Guideline 12; International Association of Prosecutors Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors, 1999 Standards 1 and 4.3 33 8 KF = xe So Ze oO