140. Without responding specifically respond to this allegation, the Respondent State averred generically that the trial of the Applicant was held in compliance with Article 3(2) of the Charter and that the Applicant was not discriminated against in any way. Moreover, he was represented by counsel in both his trials from the High Court to Court of Appeal. *** 141. Article 3 of the Charter guarantees the right to equal protection of the law and to equality before the law provides as follows: 1. Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. 142. The Court has previously considered the issue of provision of interpretation services and held that “even though Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter does not expressly provide for the right to be assisted by an interpreter, it may be interpreted in the light of Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR, which provides that: “… everyone shall be entitled to … (a) be promptly informed and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; and (f) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court”. 55 143. It is, therefore, evident from a joint reading of the two provisions that every accused person has the right to an interpreter if they are unable to understand the language in which the proceedings are being conducted. Furthermore, this Court has held that it is practically necessary that where an accused person is represented by Counsel, that the need for interpretation is communicated to the Court”.56 If an Applicant does not object to the continuance of proceedings in a language other than his own, 55 Guehi v. Tanzania, supra, § 73; Henerico v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 126-127; Yahaya Zumo Makame v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 023/2016, Judgment of 25 June 2021 (merits and reparations), § 93. 56 Makame v. Tanzania, ibid, § 93. 39