it does not matter whether or not the testimony of the Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1) corroborated the content of the charge sheet as there was direct credible evidence which the Judge duly took into account. 62.The Respondent, in conclusion, submits that tlris allegation is baseless and must consequently be dismissed. 63. The relevant section of Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter provides that: "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard..." 64.This Article may be interpreted in liQht of the provisions of Article 14 (1) of the Covenant which provides that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. tn the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled lo a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by |aw...." (italics odded) 65.|t is evident from the above two provisions, read together, that everyone has the right to a fair trial. 66.The records of proceedings at national level show that the Applicant was caught red-handed committing armed robbery. The Court also notes that the national courts heard the Applicant as well as three eye witnesses, in addition to the victim; and that all declared having seen the Applicant in the act of committing the offence. 67.It is also evident from the judgement of the Court of Appeal that it examined all the pleadings by the Applicant before upholding the decision rendered by the lower courts. 6B.The Court recalls that its role in regard to evaluation of the evidence on which the conviction by the national judge was grounded is limited to determining whether, generally, the manner in which the latter evaluated s 16 4\L-( -+- il J- r r'J--f \l t,/ ,ful- | '. -o./