that Exhibit 2 was relied upon by the appellate courts to sustain his conviction and sentence by wrongly invoking the doctrine of recent possession. According to the Applicant, this has violated his right to be heard under Article 7 of the Charter. * 74. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s submissions and contends that his allegations should be put to strict proof. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant’s trial and his appeals were conducted in accordance with its laws and in line with international human rights standards. 75. In this regard, it asserts that the Applicant was arrested and charged accordingly and he was present during the preliminary hearing as well as the trial during which he was allowed to enter his defence, call witnesses, cross examine prosecution witnesses and consult and challenge the validity of Exhibits. The Respondent State asserts that the Applicant was subsequently able to exercise his right to appeal both at the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It submits that his right to be heard was respected throughout the trial and appellate stages. *** 76. The Court notes that Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that 1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a. The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; b. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; 19