000?95' 81. The Court notes thatArticle 7(1)(c) of the Charter does not provide explicitly for the right to free legal aid. Nevertheless, in the Matter of Alex Thomas v. Tanzaniale, the Court underlined that Article 7(1Xc) of the Charter, interpreted in light of Article 14(3)(d) of the lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as ICCPR)z0, establishes the right to free legal aid where a person is charged with a serious criminal offence, who cannot afford to pay for legal representation and where the interest of justice so requires.2l The interest of justice is required in particular, if the Applicant is "indigent, the offence is serious and the penalty provided by the law is severe."22 82.The Court notes that the Applicant was not afforded free legal aid throughout the proceedings in the national courts. The Court further notes that Respondent State does not dispute that the Applicant is indigent, that the the offence is serious and the penalty provided by law is severe, it only contends that he did not make a request for legal aid. 83. Given that the Applicant was charged with a serious offence, that is, armed robbery, carrying a minimum punishment of thirty (30) years imprisonment; the interest of justice required that the Applicant should have been provided with free legal aid irrespective of whether he requested for such assistance. 1s 20 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits), S 1 14. The Respondent State acceded to the lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 'l 1 June 1576. 21 "in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees in full equality: ...to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing, lo be informed if he does not have legal assistance assigned to him, in any c€lse where the interest of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case, if he does not have sufficienl means to pay for it." 22 Alex Thomas lbid, S 123, see also Mohammed Abubakai v Tanzania (Merits), $$ 138-139; Application No. 027/2015. Judgment of 2110912018 (Merits and Reparations), Minani Evarist v.United Republic of Tanzania (hereafter refened to as"Minani Evaist v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations)"), S 68; Application No. 016/2016. Judgment ol 2'110912018 (Merits and Reparations), Diocles Williams v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereafter referred to as'Dioc/es William v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations)'), S 85; Application No. 020/2016. Judgment of 2110912018 (Merits and Reparations), Anaclet Paulo v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), $ 92. 20