000?96 C. Allegation on failure to provide the Applicant with free legal aid 77 .The Applicant contends that the Respondent State has violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, claiming that he was not provided with free legal representation at both the trial and appeal stages of his case. 78.The Respondent State submits that the fact that the Applicant had no legal representation does not mean that he was discriminated against or denied the right to be represented by a legal counsel of his choice. lt further contends that it is not clear from Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter that it is required to provide legal aid for all criminal trials. Furthermore, the Respondent State contends that the right is not absolute and depends on availability of resources. 79.Citing Article 7(1Xc) of the Charter, the Respondent State avers that the Applicant made a deliberate decision to defend himself. The Respondent State refers to the Case of Melin v France in which the European Court of Human Rights held that an accused who decides to defend himself is required to show diligenceiT; and contends that the Applicant did not do so. The Respondent State therefore argues that it did not violate the Applicant's right to legal aid. The Respondent State also refers to Article 8(2Xd) and(e) of the American Convention on Human Rights in this regard.18 S0.Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides: "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: [... ] c) The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice." 17 Melin v. France, Appl. 12914187 , 22 June 1993, ECIHR, Series A, 261 . "it is clear that an accused may choose to defend himself or engage counsel of his own choice", adding that'in our case at hand, the Applicant defended himself and there was no evidence that he could not engage a legal counsel of his own choice." 18 19 @-