93. The Court recalls that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, in so far as is material, provides that “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard …”. As the Court has held,37 this Article may be interpreted in light of the provisions of Article 14(1) of the ICCPR which provides that “[a]ll persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law …”. A combined reading of the two provisions confirms that everyone has a right to a fair trial. 94. Before individually assessing the specific allegations made by the Applicants, the Court wishes to reiterate its approach to considering allegations that question the manner in which domestic courts dealt with questions that arose during trial or appellate processes, especially evidential matters. As pointed out in Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania:38 Though this Court is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts, this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned. With regard to manifest errors in proceedings at national courts, this Court will examine whether the national courts applied appropriate principles and international standards in resolving the errors. This is the approach that has been adopted by similar international courts. 95. The above approach has been consistently confirmed by the Court. 39 For example, in Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania, the Court restated its approach as follows:40 37 Jonas v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 64-65. Thomas v. Tanzania, supra, § 130. 39 See, for example, Jonas v. Tanzania, supra, § 69. 40 (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, §§ 65-66. 38 25