prison sentence. Yet, he was not provided with legal assistance and he had to defend himself throughout the proceedings. The Court notes that the Respondent State admits that the Applicant was not represented by a lawyer but insists that he should have made a request if he needed one. The Respondent State also does not dispute that the Applicant was indigent. 94. The Court has established, in its jurisprudence, that where accused persons are charged with serious offences which carry heavy sentences and they are indigent, free legal assistance should be provided as of right, whether or not they have requested for it.31 95. The Court has also held that, the duty to provide free legal assistance to indigent persons facing serious charges which carry a heavy penalty is for both the trial and appellate stages.32 States should, therefore, automatically grant legal assistance as long as the interest of justice require, regardless of the fact that an applicant has not requested for it. 96. In the instant case, the Court holds that given his circumstances, the interests of justice required that the Applicant be provided with legal assistance throughout his trial and appeals. An offence carrying a minimum of thirty (30) years imprisonment should have prompted the judicial authorities to assign a lawyer to the Applicant. Considering the fundamental importance of the Applicant’s rights at stake, this obligation does not depend on the Respondent State’s resource capacity or even on an express request from the Applicant. 97. In view of this, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s claim that free legal representation should first be requested by an applicant and that its provision depends on availability of resources. 31Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 123; Isiaga v. Tanzania, ibid, § 78; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 104 and 106. 32 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), § 124; Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (18 March 2016) 1 AfCLR 507, § 183. 24