0008?n VII. MERITS 55.The Applicants allege the violations of Artictes 1,2,3,4, s, 6, 7 and 9 of the charter. The Court notes however that the Applicants' grievances can be summarized into three allegations, falling underthe right to a fairtrial in Article 7 of the Charter, namely: a. lllegal conviction and sentence imposed against the Applicants; b. The failure to provide the Applicants with free legal assistance; c. Denial of right to information. A. Allegation relating to the legality of the conviction and sentence 56.The Applicants allege that they were indicted and convicted for robbery with violence pursuant to Sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code which they aver provides for a punishment of fifteen (15) years imprisonment. 57. According to the Applicants, the Respondent State's argument that Section 28b and 286 of the Penal Code should be read together with Section 5(b) of the Minimum Sentencing Act "is devoid and wants merits."(src) 58. lt is the view of the Applicants that the Penal Code which establishes the offence for robbery with violence provides for a lesser sentence than the Minimum Sentencing Act which provides for the thirty years' imprisonment and that the Penal Code's provision as the foundation of the offence, supersedes the Minimum Sentencing Act. The Applicants thus submit that the national courts erred in sentencing them to a term of thirty (30) years' imprisonment. 59. The Respondent State refutes all the allegations raised by the Applicants, noting that a term of thifi (30) years' imprisonment is the applicable sentence for robbery with violence pursuant to Section 285 and 286 of the Penal Code as read together with 15