(ICCPR),30 and determined that the right to defence includes the right to be provided with free legal assistance.31 82. The Court has established in its jurisprudence that where accused persons are charged with serious offences which carry heavy sentences and they are indigent, free legal assistance should be provided as of right, whether or not the accused persons request for it.32 The Court has also held in the case of Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania that the duty to provide free legal assistance to indigent persons facing serious charges which carry a heavy penalty is for both the trial and appellate stages.33 83. The Court confirms, from the record, that the Second Applicant was not afforded free legal assistance throughout the proceedings in the national courts. The Court also notes that, the Respondent State did not dispute that the Second Applicant was not provided legal assistance although he was indigent and charged with a grave offence. The Court takes note, in this connection, the Respondent State’s averment that legal assistance is not mandatory and that the Applicant did not suffer any disadvantage by conducting his own defence. 84. In the instant case, the Court observes that the Second Applicant is indigent and faced a serious charge of gang rape carrying a sentence of life imprisonment, yet he was not informed of his right to legal assistance. The Court is of the considered view that given his circumstances, the interests of justice required that the Second Applicant should have been provided with free legal assistance throughout his trial and appeals. 30 The Respondent State became a State Party to the ICCPR on 11 June 1976. Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 72; Augustine v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 73 and Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 114. 32 Minani Evarist v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, § 68; Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 85 and Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 104. 33 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), § 124; Chacha Wambura and Mang’azi Mkama v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Consolidated Applications Nos. 011/2016 and 012/2016, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (judgment), § 101 and Wilfred Onyango Nganyi 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (18 March 2016) 1 AfCLR 507, § 183. 31 21