67. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to free legal assistance 68. The Applicant alleges that he was not afforded free legal assistance in the proceedings against him before the domestic courts and that the Respondent State thereby violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 69. He submits that his grievances relate primarily to the alleged violation of the right to free legal assistance, which is a source of miscarriage of justice not only for the Applicant but also for many Tanzanians. He submits that the Prosecutor of the Respondent State is duty-bound to refrain from employing improper methods to secure wrongful conviction. Rather, he must deploy all legitimate methods to secure a just conviction. 70. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant was afforded this right. It explains that the Applicant commenced his defence on 20 September 2006 and was afforded the opportunity to defend himself. It further contends that the Applicant had the opportunity to apply for legal aid under Section 3 of the Legal Aid (Criminal Proceedings) Act. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant could also have applied for legal aid for his appeal to the Court of Appeal under Part II Rule 31(1) of the Rules of Procedure of 2009 of the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal. 71. The Respondent State points out that Article 13(6) of its Constitution provides for the obligation to ensure equality before the law as well as the right to appeal or the right to pursue any other remedy to challenge the decision of the Court in question. It submits that the Applicant was granted leave to file a late appeal before the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State submits that in the circumstances of the present case, the trial duration of two (2) years and three (3) months constitutes reasonable time. 17