to degrading treatment or torture. In any event, there is no evidence on record that the Applicant suffered such violations. 71. In the absence of such evidence, the Court considers the allegations to be unfounded and therefore dismisses them. 72. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s rights protected by Article 5 of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the right to free legal assistance 73. The Applicant alleges that he was not afforded legal aid in the proceedings against him before the domestic courts, and that the Respondent State thereby violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 74. The Respondent State did not respond to this prayer. *** 75. Under Article7(1)(c) of the Charter, the right to have one’s case heard includes “the right to a defence, including the right to be assisted by counsel of one’s own choosing”. 76. The Court has previously interpreted Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter in light of Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),17 and determined that the right to defence includes the right to be provided with free legal assistance.18 77. The Court has also held that anyone charged with a serious offence, punishable by a severe sentence, is entitled to have legal representation 17 The Respondent State became a State Party to the ICCPR on 11 June 1976. Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 114; Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 78; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, §§ 104 and 106. 18 17