he will be deemed to understand the processes and to have agreed to the manner in which they were being conducted.57 144. In the instant case, the Court notes that the record of proceedings during the trial demonstrates that at the preliminary hearing held on 10 November 2004, the Applicant was provided with an interpreter, one Mr A. Joseph, who interpreted the proceedings from English into Kiswahili and vice versa. The Applicant was also represented by Advocate Katabalwa. The offence and its particulars were read over to both the Applicant and co-accused in their “own language” and both pleaded not guilty to committing the offence, “Siyo kweli” in Kiswahili, meaning, “not true”. Thereafter, a plea of not guilty was entered. The Court observes that the accused persons entered their plea in Kiswahili and at no point during the proceedings did the Applicant object to the proceedings or expressly raise any objections, or inform the court or his counsel that he did not understand the language of the proceedings or requested for an interpreter.58 145. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR, with regard to the alleged failure to provide the Applicant with interpretation services during his trial. 146. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the only right violated by the Respondent State within the rubric of fair trial rights is the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time as provided for under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 57 58 Guehi v. Tanzania, supra, § 77. Ibid, § 77. 40