understand, with J. Kasenene providing interpretation in both languages, as illustrated in the Record of Proceedings. It calls upon the Court to dismiss this allegation for lack of merit. It did not address the rest of the claims raised by the Applicants under this allegation. *** 83. On the issue of interpretation, the Court has previously considered this and held that “even though Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter does not expressly provide for the right to be assisted by an interpreter, it may be interpreted in the light of Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR”, which provides: “… everyone shall be entitled to … (a) be promptly informed and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; and (f) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.”31 84. It is, therefore, evident from a joint reading of the two provisions that every accused person has the right to an interpreter if they are unable to understand the language in which the proceedings are being conducted. Furthermore, this Court has also held that “it is practically necessary that where an accused person is represented by Counsel, that the need for interpretation is communicated to the Court”.32 As such, if an applicant does not object to the continuance of proceedings in a language other than his own, they will be deemed to understand the processes and to have agreed to the manner in which they were being conducted.33 85. In the instant case, this Court notes from the record that the First Applicant, reported at the preliminary hearing that he got to know Swahili when he went to prison on 13/5/1999.34 On the other hand, the lawyer for the Second 31 Guehi v. Tanzania, ibid; Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations), §§ 126-127; Yahaya Zumo Makame v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (25 June 2021) 5 AfCLR 257, § 93. 32 Makame v. Tanzania, ibid. 33 Guehi v. Tanzania, supra, § 77. 34 Page 62/47. 25