guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; b. the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; c. the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; d. the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 251. The Court notes that, while the Charter does not expressly provide for a right to a remedy, Article 1 of the Charter stipulates that “[t]he Member States of the Organisation of the African Unity, parties to the present Charter shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined therein and shall undertake to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to them.”71 252. The Court observes that the right to a remedy derives from the obligation set out in Article 1 of the Charter to establish judicial or other such mechanisms to address alleged breaches of substantive rights protected in the Charter. This right to a remedy is further reinforced by a joint reading of Articles 1 and 7(1)(a) of the Charter. These provisions are in line with the general principle of law that a remedy must be afforded when rights are breached.72 253. In the present case, the Court notes that the Respondent State has enacted laws of general application but which also have provisions for the protection of PWA such as the Constitution, Persons with Disabilities Act and the Legal Aid Act 2017 and this has not been disputed by the Applicants. 254. The Court also notes the uncontroverted evidence submitted by the Respondent State that it has set up mobile courts and removed language barriers in order to increase access to the courts by PWA. Furthermore, the 71 72 Munthali v. Malawi (merits and reparations), supra, § 102. Munthali v. Malawi, ibid, § 102. 58