assessment of the evidence, was done in consonance with international human rights standards. 75. The record before this Court shows that the Court of Appeal considered the allegation presented in the Applicant’s case and found it did not occasion any injustice to the Applicant insofar as the trial was carried to its conclusions and the Applicant defended himself. The Court, therefore, considers that the Applicant failed to demonstrate and prove that the manner in which the trial proceedings were conducted revealed manifest errors requiring this Court’s intervention. 76. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and finds that the Respondent State has not violated his right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. ii. Allegation relating to the Criminal Procedure Act 77. The Applicant faults the Respondent State for its court’s failure to comply with Section 293(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Applicant further submits that this failure should have led to the invalidation of the proceedings and to the remission of the case to the High Court. * 78. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s allegation and asserts that this point had already been finalised by the Court of Appeal in its judgment, as the Applicant raised the same issue as his first ground of appeal before the Court of Appeal. 79. The Respondent State submits that its Court of Appeal duly considered that the provision of Section 293(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates the rights of the accused person after being found to have a case to answer by the trial court. The Respondent State notes that the Court of Appeal held that the broad purpose of that section is essentially to let the accused know 21