Alleged violation of the right to defence 59. The Applicant alleges the deprivation of his right to a fair trial on the basis that judgment was delivered without him being given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. The Respondent State disputes this allegation without substantiation. eK 60. The Court notes that the relevant provision relating to the alleged violation is Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, which provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: ... c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by Counsel of his choice.” 61. The Court notes that in the instant case, the Applicant makes a general allegation without demonstrating how he was not accorded the opportunity to be heard or to defend himself. On the contrary, the record shows that the Applicant was heard and had the opportunity to defend himself at all levels of the proceedings. The Applicant listed the absence of proof of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the collusion between grounds appeal of appeal. during which PW1, PW2 He also appeared he supplemented and PW3 to incriminate him, as the in person during the hearing his written submissions of his with the assertion that the victim's parents and the police officers were never called to testify. 62. This Court notes that the Court of Appeal observed that the Applicant's case “... fests wholly on the credibility of witnesses. All things being equal, the credibility of a witness is always in the province of a trial court”. Considering, inter alia, the case of Godi Kasenegala v. the Republic — Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2008, the Court of Appeal noted that “It is now settled law that the proof of rape comes from the victim herself. Other witnesses who did not witness the incident, such as doctors, may provide corroborating evidence.” 17