Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY accordingly, dismissed the Applicant’s allegations and held that the Respondent State did not violate his right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. On the allegation relating to the competence of the interpreter, the Court recalled its previous decision in Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania, where it held that every accused person has the right to an interpreter which is an aspect of fair trial under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter read jointly with Article 14(3)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and that in cases where the accused cannot understand or speak the language that is being used in court, he or she is entitled to an interpreter. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, read jointly with Article 14(3)(a) and (f) of the ICCPR, on the right to defence with regard to the right to be assisted by an interpreter, as the facts revealed that the Applicant’s ability to defend himself were not affected by the language issue, considering, among others, that interpretation was provided from Kiswahili to Chinese and vice versa and that he was represented by counsel during the trial and appellate proceedings. On the allegation relating to the denial of bail, the Court observed that the Charter does not explicitly guarantee the right to bail in any of its provisions. However, the ICCPR, in Article 9(3), affirms that the detention of individuals accused of having committed crimes should be an exceptional measure. Those awaiting trial ought to be granted bail unless specific circumstances necessitate detention, such as the need to uphold the integrity of the trial and prevent the risk of absconding. The Court emphasised that the decision on whether to grant bail to an accused demands an individualised assessment, taking into account the unique facts of each case and the specific circumstances of the Applicant. The Court further noted that there may be circumstances warranting the denial of bail. In the instant case, the Court observed that the Magistrate’s Court, in its Ruling delivered on 24 November 2015, duly considered different reasons for denying bail to the Applicant and his co-accused, including the severity of the charge against the Applicant, the severity of the sentence it may attract, the necessity to guarantee the presence of the Applicant during the whole trial, as well as the risk of abscondment and the devastating consequences on the case should it materialise. In view of the foregoing, the Court found that the domestic court’s decision to deny bail to the Applicant does not reveal any manifest errors requiring its intervention. The Court, therefore, dismissed the Applicant’s allegation and held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s 5