131. The Court finds that the alleged manifest errors relating to the value of the property, proof that the offence of armed robbery I occurred, the authenticity of the Police Form 3 issued to the alleged victim of the armed robbery and the causal connection between the Applicant and the allegedly recently stolen goods were not of such a nature as to deny the Applicant his right to a fair trial. However, the 27 See Application 001/2013 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi. 28 See Application No. 76809101 Bavmann v Austria ECHR Judgment of 7 October 2004 paragraph 49; Communication 375/09 Priscilla Njeri Echaria (represented b_r Federation of Women Lawyers, Kenya and International Center for the Protection of Human Rights) v Kenya ACHPR 5 November 2011 paragraph 36; Case of Santiago Marzioni v Argentina 11.673, Report No. 39196, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, OEA/Ser. UV/11.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 76 (1997) paragraph 51. Also see Application No. 30544/96 Garcia Ruiz v Spain, Judgment of 21 January 1999 (Grand Chamber) paragraph 28, Application No. 47287/99 Perez v France Judgment of 12 February 2004 (Grand Chamber) paragraph 81, Application No 34553/97, Dufaurans v France Judgment of 21 March 2000, paragraph 39. 53 Court finds that the failure to determine the issue of the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen and the discrepancies in the description of this property, were violations of a fundamental nature and adversely affected his right to a fair hearing at the trial and Appellate Courts. V. The alleged Violation by the Respondent of its Obligation to Recognise the Rights, Duties and Freedoms Enshrined in the Charter and to Adopt Measures to Give Them Effect.