0008?0 years' imprisonment. ln addition, the Respondent State has not adduced any evidence to challenge the contention that the Applicants were lay and indigent, without legal knowledge and technical legal skills to properly defend their case in the course of their trial and appellate proceedings. ln these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the interests of justice warranted that the Applicants should have been provided with free legal assistance. 79.The Court takes note of the Respondent State's contention that the Applicants were not in any way disadvantaged for having not been given legal assistance, as they were able to defend themselves. However, the Court observes that the Applicants do not need to show that the non-provision of legal assistance occasioned some disadvantage to them in the course of their trial and appeals at the District Court and appellate courts. ln so far as the interests of justice required the provision of free legal assistance and the Respondent State had failed to do afford one, its responsibility would be engaged. 80.The Court further underscores that the Respondent State's citation of its domestic laws requiring the provision of legal assistance is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Applicants have in fact got the benefit of free legal assistance. The Respondent State's contention in this regard thus lacks merit. 81. ln view the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 7(1) (c) of the Charter. G. Allegation relating to denial of right to information 82.According to the Applicants, the failure to be informed about their rights in the triat amounts to the denial of the right to information. The Applicants argue that they were not informed of their right to legal representation or fair trial by the national courts. 20 e-