wide margin of discretion that domestic courts enjoy in this regard, the Court does not see any reason for it to intervene or conclude otherwise. 99. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicant's allegation that he was not allowed to call witnesses to corroborate his alibi defence and, therefore, finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. iv. Alleged violation of the right to free legal assistance 100. The Applicant further alleges that he did not receive free legal assistance before the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which would have enabled him to better understand the legal and procedural issues arising during the appeals. He argues that by not granting him such assistance, the national courts failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Respondent State and hence violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 101. The Applicant cites, in this regard, the judgment in Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. Tanzania wherein the Court noted that in view of the seriousness of the charges levelled against the Applicants, the Court held that the Respondent State was under the obligation to provide them with free legal assistance; and to inform the Applicants of their right to free legal assistance, as soon as it became clear that they were no longer being represented. 102. The Respondent State asserts that whereas the right to defence is absolute in domestic law, the right to legal aid is obligatory only in homicide, murder or manslaughter cases, and that for all other criminal cases, legal aid is granted only at the request of the accused if it is proved that he is indigent and unable to pay the counsel's fees. Refuting the Applicant's allegations, the Respondent State contends that at no point in the proceedings did he make such a request, but rather he opted to take charge of his own defence. 29