human rights instrument it has ratified. The Court, therefore, finds it unnecessary to determine whether the provisions of the Respondent State’s Constitution cited by the Applicant were violated. C. Alleged violation of the right to defence 94. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to counsel of his choice protected under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 95. The Respondent State did not make any submissions regarding this allegation. *** 96. The Court notes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that, “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises … the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice”. 97. The Court recalls that it has held that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, guarantees any one charged with a serious criminal offence, the right to be automatically assigned counsel free of charge whenever the interests of justice so require.33 The Court has also previously held that, the obligation to provide free legal assistance to persons facing serious charges, which carry a heavy penalty, applies to both the trial and appellate stages.34 98. While the Applicant has not substantiated this claim, the Court notes, from the records, that the Applicant was represented by Mr. Katabalwa and Mr. Rweyemamu at the High Court, and by Mr. S. Kahangwa35 at the Court of Appeal. The Court also notes that all three (3) counsel were provided at the Respondent State’s expense. Further, the Court observes that nothing on 33 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 124. Idem; Nganyi and Others v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 183. 35 These are the names of Counsel as they appear on the record. 34 25