89. The Respondent State concedes that the hearing of the case against the Applicant was conducted without the aid of a lawyer. Nonetheless, it argues that the Applicant was always in a position to adequately defend himself and chose to do so. The Respondent State maintains that the opportunity for legal assistance in the form of a defence counsel was available to the Applicant through Section 3 of its Legal Aid Criminal Procedure Act yet he failed to make such a request. 90. In this connection, the Respondent State asserts that in its legal system, the right to free legal representation is only mandatory and should be provided without the need to request for it with respect to homicide, murder and manslaughter cases. However, for other offences, legal assistance is subject to a request by an accused person or appellant, who also has to prove that he is indigent and unable to afford legal services. As such, it prays the Court that it should apply the principle of margin of appreciation, taking into consideration its limited financial capacity, and dismiss the Applicant’s allegation. *** 91. According to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the right to have one’s cause heard includes ��the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of [their] choice.” 92. 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),29 and determined that the right to defence includes the right to be provided with free legal assistance.30 93. In the instant case, the Court observes, from the record, that the Applicant was not represented by Counsel during the domestic proceedings. He faced a serious charge of armed robbery carrying a minimum thirty (30) years 29 The Respondent State became a State Party to the ICCPR on 11 June 1976. Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 114; Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 72; Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 104. 30 23