not indicate if this sentence was executed. Nevertheless, by maintaining corporal punishment in its penal laws, the Respondent State creates a constant possibility that the punishment may be imposed by its Courts, as occurred in the Applicants’ case. Given the preceding, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicants’ right to dignity. 69. In light of the above, the Court holds that the Respondent State has violated Article 5 of the Charter by maintaining, in its penal law, provisions prescribing corporal punishment as well as by permitting its courts to impose the penalty of corporal punishment on the Applicants. D. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 70. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State failed to ensure their right to a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter by not affording them legal representation at any stage in the proceedings before the domestic courts. * 71. The Respondent State, without specifically addressing the Applicants’ allegations, submits that it did not violate any of the Applicants’ rights under the Charter. *** 72. The Court observes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises… the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice.” 73. The Court notes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter does not provide explicitly for the right to free legal assistance. Nevertheless, the Court has held that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to 18