did not fully understand the accusations levied at him until he was informed by a fellow prisoner when he was detained in 2004. 99. The Applicant further submits that while the Respondent State avers that there was an interpreter in court, the interpreter was translating English into Kiswahili and vice versa, both being languages that he could not understand at the time of the original proceedings. He also alleges that he was not afforded the resources to enable him to effectively understand pretrial proceedings, defend himself during trial, and have his cause heard. 100. The Respondent State disputes this allegation as baseless and void of merit, adding that there was an interpreter in court throughout the hearing of the case as it is reflected in the court proceedings. The Respondent State submits that the right to prepare adequate defence is always granted expeditiously by its judicial authorities without any bias taking into consideration also the language constraints of the accused persons. 101. In his reply, the Applicant submits that he discovered the contents of the statement he gave to the police and the misrepresented information therein only when he was in prison. *** 102. The Court observes that while Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter does not explicitly provide for the right to be assisted by an interpreter, the said right is expressly guaranteed in Article 14(3)(a) and (f) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which provides that “… 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”.36 36 Ratified by the Respondent State on 11 June 1976. 28