witnesses, counsel, assessors and the judge. It is therefore an essential part of judicial proceedings. 80. The First Applicant avers that he instructed his counsel to make provision for an interpreter prior to the original proceedings but the trial courts rejected the request on the grounds that it would cause confusion. He also avers that the Court acknowledged his request for an interpreter but failed to arrange for one.29 81. The Second Applicant avers that during his arrest the terminology used required a high level of fluency, far beyond the basic transactional Kiswahili that he had mastered in the refugee camp. He, therefore, struggled to understand the police interrogations and the proceedings. He adds that during the “Trial within a trial proceeding” he was asked whether he spoke Kiswahili to which, he informed the Court that he did not speak it properly and was a refugee from Burundi. The second Applicant further avers that by the time his case went to trial, seven years after his arrest, he had learned to speak Kiswahili fluently in prison and did not hide his fluency at the time of his trial, which unfortunately, worked against his interest. He argues that the Court, in Armand Guehi case, also recognised the significance of the right to an interpreter during the interrogation phase. He draws from various jurisprudence to support his arguments.30 * 82. The Respondent State disputes this allegation and puts the Applicants to the strict proof thereof. It avers that the trial was conducted in both English and Swahili languages to enable the Applicants and court assessors to 29 Applicants’ submission pursuant to Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018), § 78; Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116, doc. 5 rev. 1 corr. (2002), at 400; John Murray v. United Kingdom ECtHR, App. No. 18731/91, (1996), §§ 45, 47-58; HRC Concluding Observations; France, UN Doc. CCPR/C/FRA/CO/4 (2008) § 14; N(6)(d)(ii) of the Principles on Fair Trial in African, Article 55(2)(b) of the ICC Statute, Rule 42(A)(iii) of the Rwanda Rules, Rule 42(A)(iii) of the Yugoslavia Rules; Amnesty International Fair Trial Manual, ed. 2, 83); Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, UN Doc, CCPR/C.81/D/1033/2001 (H.R.C. 2004), § 7.2; Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, ICC01/04-01/07, Judgement, § 3 (27 May, 2008). 30 24