98. The Court notes, in particular, in the ruling by the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal, that the Court of Appeal considered that “an application for extension of time to apply for review […] must disclose sufficient cause or good ground as per rule 66(1) of the 2009 Court of Appeal rules” and that that “[n]o such good cause predicated on Rule 66(1) of the Rules has been shown here”.31 The Court of Appeal, accordingly, held that “as the applicants have failed to cross the legal threshold set by prevailing jurisprudence, but are seeking an extension of time because they were only dissatisfied with the Court’s decision”, For this reason, it rejected the application and dismissed it in its entirety.32 99. This Court, furthermore, notes that there is nothing on the record to support the Applicant’s claim that the conduct of the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal led to a violation of his right to be heard. 100. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be heard, as protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to non-discrimination 101. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to nondiscrimination protected under Article 2 of the Charter. * 102. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s claims and asserts that at no time was he discriminated against, in violation of Article 2 of the Charter. The Respondent State further claims that the Applicant was properly subjected to the criminal procedure of the Respondent State and that he was not targeted for his race, ethnic grouping, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, 31 32 Ibid, page 7. Ibid, page 8. 23