not informed of the right to be provided with free legal assistance if he was unable to pay for legal representation. This Court further observes that the Respondent State did not refute the Applicant’s allegation that he is indigent. 76. This Court is of the view that in interest of justice, free legal aid ought to have been provided considering that the Applicant is a foreigner, is indigent and also because of the gravity of the penalty attached to the offence. Additionally, the Court has already determined that there is no need for the accused to request for legal aid and that the Respondent State is under an obligation to provide for free legal representation regardless of whether the accused has made a request or not. Furthermore, in the past, this Court has also refuted the Respondent State’s defence that free legal representation is availed depending on available resources as unjustifiable.23 77. The Court therefore finds that, by failing to provide the Applicant with free legal representation during the domestic proceedings, the Respondent State violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR. ii. Allegation relating to the Respondent State’s failure to notify the Rwandese Embassy of the Applicant’s arrest and incarceration 78. The Applicant avers that he is a Rwandese national whose rights were violated when the Respondent State failed to inform the Rwandese embassy about his arrest and incarceration, thus denying him consular services and legal assistance to which he was entitled. As a result of this, he claims that he “suffered a mistrial, consequentially leading to a miscarriage of justice”. * 23 Minani Evarist v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, § 70. 20