242. For these reasons, THE COURT, Unanimously: i) Dismisses the objection to the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae based on the argument that, by examining the evidence of the Applicant’s guilt, it would be constituting itself as an appellate Court; ii) Dismisses the objection to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae based on the argument that the Applicant did not invoke the relevant provisions of the Protocol and the Rules of Court; iii) Declares that it has jurisdiction to hear the iv) Dismisses the objection regarding Application; inadmissibility of the Application on the grounds that it is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter; v) Dismisses the objection regarding inadmissibility of the Application on grounds of non-exhaustion of local remedies; vi) Dismisses the objection regarding inadmissibility of the Application on grounds of failure to file the Application before vii) viii) the Court within reasonable time; Declares the Application admissible; | Rules that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7 of the Charter and/or Article 14 of the Covenant as regards the Applicant's allegations that: the police post where he was held at the time of his arrest was not provided with basic facilities; he was discriminated against in terms of free legal charge sheet was marred with irregularities; he was crime weapons and the stolen items being found; term for by the of imprisonment not provided assistance; the sentenced without the and he was sentenced to a law at the time the offence occurred; ix) Rules that the Respondent State has violated Article 7 of the Charter and Article 14 of the Covenant as regards the Applicant’s rights to defend himself and have QV the benefit of a Counsel at the time of his arrest; to obtain free legal assistance during the judicial proceedings; to be promptly given the documents 62 Y Re in the er ? ee. Ke O