alleges further that two of his three grounds of appeal were not considered by the Court of Appeal because that court found that the Applicant did not raise them in his appeal before the High Court. 40.The Applicant claims that by overlooking the grounds in question, the Court of Appeal has confined itself only to procedural matters, rather than considering the interests of justice. Accordingly, the Applicant alleges that his right to equal protection of the law provided under Article 3(2) of the Charter has been violated. 41.|n his Reply, the Applicant refutes the contention of the Respondent State that he confessed to having commifted the crime, and insists that he has always pleaded not guilty. He also claims that, before the domestic courts, the issue should have been about the marriage between him and the victim rather than the crime of rape since he was living with the victim in a marital relationship. 42.1n this regard, the Applicant states that there is a contradiction regarding the age of the victim: on the one hand, the public prosecutor claims that the victim was 15 years old, whereas the mother, on the other hand, says she was 16 years old; on her part, before living together with the Applicant, the victim had told the Applicant that she was 18 years old. 43.The Applicant avers that in the community to which they belong, it is common practice for a man and woman to live together under the same roof before formalizing the traditional marriage. He claims that he had offered the victim's mother a dowry that was higher than the one offered by another individual who wanted to marry the victim. 44.The Applicant also claims that even if the victim was under 18, the mother had given her consent for them to live together; othenryise, she would never have kept silent for two weeks without saying anything to her neighbours, only to show up at the Applicant's home after all that time demanding to have her daughter and report the case to the police. I 10 Y