VII. MERITS 89. The Court will examine the only violation alleged by the Applicant in relation to the proceedings against his lawyers, namely, violation of his right to a fair trial. 90. The Applicant maintains that the Respondent State’s Constitutional Court examined his petitions without taking due cognisance of all the issues raised. He concludes that the said Court did not sufficiently rely on the arguments advanced and denounces the approach of the Respondent State’s Constitutional Court. 91. He points out that the Constitutional Court minimised its investigative resources prior to handing down its decision in the following terms: The applicant’s requests, in fact, seeks to have the Court ascertain the conditions of application of the rules governing the legal profession, in particular Regulation No 05/CM/WAEMU of 25 September 2014 on the harmonisation of the rules governing the legal profession in the WAEMU area and Law No 65-6 of 20 April 1965 establishing the Benin Bar; that such an assessment falls within the scope of the review of legality; that the Court, determines constitutionality and not legality. 92. In reply, the Respondent State submits that the alleged refusal to investigate and receive the Applicant’s petitions is unfounded and unsubstantiated. 93. It argues that the Constitutional Court petitioned by the Applicant ruled on the matter, so that there was no violation of the right to a fair trial. *** 94. The Court notes that Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter provides: “Everyone shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises… the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force. 24