98. Finally, the Applicant also raises the issue of lack of effective representation in this matter regarding funds availed to state-appointed counsel. The Court observes that the Applicant refers to the amount of United States Dollars Thirty (USD 30) – which is the equivalent of Tanzanian Shillings Sixty-Nine Thousand (TZS 69,000)25 – as what counsels receive for the entire case. 99. The Court notes that, in the present case, the Applicant does not provide evidence for the figures stated such as any official document or statements of practising attorneys who had in the past laboured as state-appointed counsel in cases of murder. Furthermore, a meritorious claim would have been one that advances the specific amounts which were paid to counsel in the present Application in order for this Court to be in a position to assess whether funds availed by the Respondent State meet the standards of appropriate legal representation within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. Absent such substantiation, the claim cannot stand. 100. The Court notes that the Applicant also claims that his lawyers were not allowed to cross examine defence witnesses. Noting further that the claim is in relation to the defence of insanity which was duly considered by domestic courts, and having concluded as it did in respect of the other claims, this Court does not find it determinant to examine the same. 101. In light of the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s right to an effective legal representation protected under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter in respect of the conflict of interest, lack of experience, and inadequate funding of state-appointed counsel. C. Alleged violation of the rights to dignity, and to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 25 As at the rate of TSZ 2,300 for USD 1. 27