VIII. MERITS 38. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State has violated the following rights: i. The right to equal protection before the law guaranteed under Article 3(2) of the Charter by placing undue emphasis on procedural compliance when determining the election petition; ii. The right to be heard protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter by unjustifiably denying the First Applicant’s reasonable request for extension of time to file additional documents; iii. The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force protected under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter, by the Supreme Court failing to competently discharge its functions when it misdirected itself in the reconsideration of evidence at Msinjiyiwi Polling station; and iv. The right of the second, third, fourth, fifth and six Applicants to participate freely in the government and public affairs of their country guaranteed under Article 13(1) of the Charter by ordering that a fresh election be conducted. A. Alleged violation of the right to participate freely in the government of one’s country 39. The second, third, fourth, fifth and six Applicants allege that the decision of the Supreme Court to nullify the elections and order fresh elections, disenfranchised their right to freely participate in governance and public affairs, and denied the First Applicant the opportunity to represent his people as a member of the national assembly. It is the contention of the said Applicants that such a breach arose from the fact that the Supreme Court’s decision was based on facts, which although true, were not material and did not affect the outcome of the election. 11