95. The Court also emphasises that Article 2(3) of the ICCPR provides: States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to: a. “ […] ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; b. ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; c. ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted 96. The Court emphasises that in the judicial system of the Respondent State, any citizen may bring a case before the Constitutional Court if he considers that his fundamental rights have been violated.31 The Court further notes that any citizen of the Respondent State has the right to directly petition the Constitutional Court, which is the guarantor of fundamental human rights. 97. Lastly, the Court notes that it emerges from the Applicant’s written submissions that he petitioned the Constitutional Court, and copies of the said court’s decisions are available in the record. 98. The Court finds that the Applicant’s right to fair trial were not violated. 99. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses this allegation and holds that the Respondent State did not violated Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter read in conjunction with Article 14 of the ICCPR. 31 Article 35 of Law 2022-09 of 27 June 2022 on the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court states: Likewise, laws and regulatory acts which may infringe fundamental human rights and public freedoms, and violate human rights in general are referred to the Constitutional Court is seized by the President of the Republic, or by any citizen, association or human rights organisation. 25