101. It follows that the Applicants were convicted and punished on the basis of legislation that existed before the date of commission of the crime, that is, 5 November 2002 and the punishment imposed on them was also prescribed in the same legislation. The Applicants' allegation that their conviction and penalty violates the Charter thus lacks merit and the Court therefore finds that there was no violation of Article 7 (2) of the Charter. 5/ The Alleged Violation relating to free legal aid i) 102. Applicants' Submissions In their submissions, the Applicants aver that their rights protected under Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter were violated because they were not given legal assistance in the Court of Appeal, although they were lay, indigent and incarcerated persons facing offences carrying heavy sentences. They further claim that the non-provision of legal aid violated the rule specified in many international instruments, including soft laws, which impose obligations on the Respondent to afford legal assistance. ii) 103. iii) Respondents' Submissions The Respondent has not responded to this allegation. The Court's Assessment 104. The Court notes that the Charter does not explicitly provide for the right to legal assistance. However, in its previous judgment in the matter of Alex Thomas v. The United Republic of Tanzania, this Court stated that free legal aid is a right implicit in the right to defense enshrined under Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter. In the same case, the Court identified two cumulative conditions required for an accused person to be eligible for the right of legal assistance: indigence and the interests ofjustice. 105. In assessing these conditions, the Court considers several factors, including (i) the seriousness of the crime, (ii) the severity of the potential sentence; (iii) the complexity of the case; (iv) the social and personal situation 28