as he was still given the right to argue his own case and all his arguments were considered by the Court of Appeal. 97. The Respondent State also submits that the Second Applicant raised the same grievance during his application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision and this was considered and dismissed by the Court of Appeal. *** 98. The Court recalls that Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter provides as follows: 1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a. The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; 99. In relation to the right under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter, the Court has held that this:26 … requires that individuals are provided with an opportunity to access competent organs, to appeal against decisions or acts violating their rights. It entails that States should establish mechanisms for such appeal and take necessary action that facilitate the exercise of this right by individuals, including providing them with judgments or decisions that they wish to appeal against within a reasonable time. 100. The Court notes that the Second Applicant’s grievance is centrally about how some of his grounds of appeal were, allegedly, not considered by the Court of Appeal. In this regard, the Court further notes, from the record, that the Court of Appeal in its judgment, at page 4, acknowledged that the Second Applicant had filed a memorandum with six (6) grounds of appeal. 26 Benedicto Mallya v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 September 2019) 3 AfCLR 482, § 43. 26