A. Alleged violation of the right to defence 76. The Second Applicant alleges that his right to defence was violated due to the failure of the Respondent State to provide him with legal representation. The Applicant submits that by failing to provide him with legal representation, the Respondent State violated his fundamental rights under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter and Article 10(2) of the Protocol. 77. The Respondent State disputes the allegations and submits that the fact that the Applicant had no legal representation does not mean he was deprived of the right to defence. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant was accorded the right to defend himself and was not denied the right to be represented by the legal counsel of his choice. 78. The Respondent State avers that free legal representation in its judicial system is mandatory only for specific offences including treason, manslaughter and murder which is not the case for the Applicant. It states that for all other offences, legal aid is upon application by the accused; and if the Applicant required legal representation, he should have applied for it from the State or from NGOs which provide legal assistance to an incumbent who requires legal assistance. 79. The Respondent State argues that, in any event, the alleged lack of legal representation alone did not vitiate the proceedings and the trial. *** 80. The Court notes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that the right to have one’s cause heard includes “the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of [their] choice.” 81. The Court has interpreted Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter in light of Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 20