United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter, in compliance with Rule 50(2)(g). 76. The Court, therefore, finds that all the admissibility conditions have been met and that this Application is admissible. VII. MERITS 77. The Court notes that the Applicant alleges that the manner in which the Respondent State’s domestic courts determined his case was in error of both the law and facts and as a result, his rights as guaranteed in Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7(1) of the Charter were violated. 78. The Court considers, however, that although the Applicant alleges violations of various rights under the Charter, at the core of his Application is the alleged violation of the right to have his cause heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. The Court will, therefore, first, consider (A) the alleged violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter, before addressing the other human rights that were allegedly violated, namely (B) the right to nondiscrimination, protected under Article 2 of the Charter, and (C) the right not to be subjected to inhumane and degrading punishment, guaranteed in Article 5 of the Charter. 79. The Court further notes that the Applicant alleges the violation of Article 13(6)(a), Article 13(6)(e), Article 15(1)(2)(a)(b) and Article 107(A)(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Respondent State. Nonetheless, the Court has previously held that in determining whether the State has complied with the Charter or any other human rights instrument it has ratified, it does not apply the domestic law in making this assessment.24 The Court will, therefore, not 24 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 28; Onyachi and Another v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 39. 19