assistance as of right.21 81. The Court has also held that the duty to afford indigent persons facing serious charges assorted with a heavy penalty holds for both the trial and appellate stages.22 States should, therefore, automatically grant legal assistance as long as the interests of justice so require. 82. In the instant case, the Court finds that given the gravity of the offence that the Applicant was facing, the interests of justice required that he be afforded legal assistance at all stages of the domestic proceedings. 83. The Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent State violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR due to its failure to provide the Applicant free legal assistance. VIII. REPARATIONS 84. In his Application, the Applicant prays the Court “to grant the Applicant’s application and restore justice by making appropriate order as per Articles 27(1) and 2 of the protocol to the Charter.” * 85. The Respondent State, for its part, prayed that “the Applicant not be awarded reparations”. *** 86. The Court recalls Article 27(1) of the Protocol which provides that: If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ 21Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 123; Isiaga v. Tanzania, ibid, § 78; Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 104 and 106. 22 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), § 124; Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (18 March 2016) 1 AfCLR 507, § 183. 20