The Applicant however submits that this omission infringed upon his right to a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter. 91. Refuting these allegations, the Respondent State asserts that the Applicant had his counsel during part of the trial before the Kibaha District Magistrate Court, adding that the counsel was never prevented from tendering exhibits or evidence in support of the Applicant’s case. The record of proceedings shows that the Applicant's counsel raised only one objection at the time of examination of the prosecution exhibits. The Respondent State, consequently, prays the Court to dismiss this allegation as unfounded. 92. The Court notes that in criminal cases, the right to defence as enshrined in Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, includes the right to be supplied with prosecution evidence and the right of the accused to challenge the said evidence. In the instant case, the main issue for determination is whether the Respondent State’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with witness statements is a violation of the Applicant's right to defence. 93. The Court further notes from the record that, during the trial stage at the District Magistrate Court, the Applicant was represented by counsel and had the opportunity to challenge the tendering of exhibits by the prosecution. He was also provided with records of witness testimony. There is nothing on record showing that he was prevented in any manner from challenging the admissibility of the exhibits in question or disputing the witness testimony. 94. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter in relation to the Applicant's right to question the admissibility of prosecution's evidence and consequently dismisses the allegation. 27