Application, the nature of evidence adduced, and the previous settlement of the case respectively are not in contention. 62. The Court further notes that the pleadings do not indicate that these conditions have not been met and therefore holds that the Application meets the requirements set out under those provisions. 63. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application fulfils all the requirements set out under Article 56 of the Charter and accordingly declares the same admissible. VII. MERITS 64. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his rights to a fair trial, consular assistance, property as well as his right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. He also alleges that he suffered mental anguish. A. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial i. The right to defence 65. The Court notes that some of the violations of fair trial rights alleged in the present Application relate to the right to defence. These are the alleged violations of the right to be assisted by an interpreter, the right to have access to a lawyer and the right to consular assistance. The relevant provision of the Charter with respect to the said rights is Article 7(1 )(c), which provides that everyone has "The right to defence including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice". a. The right to be assisted by an interpreter 66. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State did not provide him with an interpreter during his interview by the police where he made a statement, which was later used against him during the trial. He asserts that the lack of language assistance 18