000lE? in the Application, the nature of the evidence, and the principle that an Application must not raise any matter already determined in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any other legal instruments of the African Union (sub-Rules 1,2,3,4, and 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules) are not in contention between the parties. 48. The Court also notes that nothing on the record suggests that these conditions have not been met in the instant case. The Court therefore holds that the requirements under those provisions are fulfilled. 49' ln light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the instant Application fulfils all admissibility conditions set out under Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules, and accordingly, declares the same admissible. VII. MERITS A. Alleged violations of the right to a fair trial 50.The Applicant alleges two violations, which fall within the ambit of the right to a fair trial, namely: the violation of the Applicant's right to have his cause heard by a court of law and the violation of the right to legal aid. i. The alleged violation of the right to have his cause heard by a court of law 51' The Applicant alleges that the Court of Appeal failed to examine ail of his arguments, since it grouped them into three ctusters, although each of his grounds of appeal were invoked for different purposes. According to the Applicant, this affected the merits of each of his pleas and consequenly violated ".'. his fundamental right to have his cause heard by a court of law, as provided for in Article 3(2) of the Charter". The Applicant also contends that there should have been a voir dire examination of the witnesses before they were allowed to testify. 52.The Respondent State rebuts the Applicant's allegation, and submits that arguments were duly examined by the court of Appeal, which held th Lzf^ e+-K+ \