VII. MERITS 95. The Applicant alleges the following human rights violations: The right to a fair trial, the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, the right to respect for her life, the right to liberty and the right to terminate her marriage. 96. Given its findings on admissibility, the Court will limit its consideration of the merits of the Application to (i) the alleged violation in the issue of termination of marriage and (ii) the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, which rights are guaranteed, respectively, by Articles 1(f)(g) and 7 of the Maputo Protocol and Article 12 of the UDHR regarding the right to terminate marriage ; and Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter and Article 14(1) of the ICCPR in respect of the right to have one’s cause heard. i. On the alleged violation of the right to terminate marriage 97. The Applicant alleges violation of her right to terminate her marriage. She recalls that the Ariana Court issued a decision granting the Applicant divorce. However, the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, taking into account all particulars governing the application of the provisions of Article 236 of the Penal Code, accused and convicted her of the offence of adultery. She submits that there are three divorce regimes in the Respondent State, namely, divorce by mutual consent, divorce at the request of one of the spouses on grounds of prejudice suffered, and lastly, no-fault divorce at the request of the husband or wife. This shows that the law provides for ending a marriage and proscribes coercing a spouse to remain in a marriage. She avers that she filed for divorce and that the court granted same on 4 June 2014, notwithstanding that she had not lived with her husband since 2013, having been awarded child custody in 2014. 98. The Applicant explains that under Article 29 of the Personal Status Code, divorce in the Respondent State is the dissolution of a marriage contract by virtue of Article 34, which reads as follows: “[t]he woman, divorced after the 26