110. As established earlier, the High Court based its determination of the matter on a wide range of pieces of evidence. Furthermore, the Applicant pleaded guilty of the charge on which he was being tried. Finally, in any event, the Applicant does not adduce any evidence that the High Court relied on his statement in arriving at the conviction. This allegation is therefore dismissed. 111. In light of the above, the Court dismisses as unfounded the allegation of violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter with respect to the manner in which the investigation was conducted. iii. The right to presumption of innocence 112. The Applicant claims that his right to presumption of innocence was "savagely flown" as there was a "presumption of guilt" against him. He avers in that regard that he had been treated with suspicion and arrested before there was any evidence that a crime had been committed and he was handed over to the police before the investigations were completed. 113. The Applicant also claims that his conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence and by ignoring some pieces of evidence and considering others, violated his right to presumption of innocence. 114. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant fails to specify or substantiate the manner in which his right to presumption of innocence was "savagely flown". ..* 115. Article 7(1 )(b) of the Charter provides that everyone has "The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal". 116. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the Applicant inferred "presumption of guilt" from the allegation that his trial was not conducted in a proper and professional manner. The Court further notes that this allegation has been 29