000 8 1? Rules makes provision for legal assistance only within the limits of available financial resources. 82. ln conclusion, the Respondent State indicates that, in any event, the process of reviewing its legal aid system was ongoing, and the outcome would be communicated to the Court in due course. *** 83. The court notes that Article 7(1) (c) of the charter stipulates "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: ... c) The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice." 84. The Court observes that even though Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter guarantees the right to defence, including the right to be assisted by counsel of one's choice, the Charter does not expressly provide for the right to free legal assistance. 85. However, in its Judgment in the Matter of Atex Thomas v. The lJnited Republic of Tanzanra, this Court stated that free legal aid is a right intrinsic to the right to a fair trial, particularly, the right to defence guaranteed by Article Z(1)(c) of the Charter.lT ln its previous jurisprudence, the Court also held that an individual charged with a criminal offence is automatically entitled to the right of free legal aid, even without the individua! having to request for the same, where the interests of justice so require, and in particular, if he is indigent, if the offence is serious and if the penalty provided by the law is severe.18 86. ln the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Applicant was not afforded free legal aid throughout his trial. Given that the Applicant was convicted of a serious crime, that is, rape, which carries a severe punishment of thirty (30) years, there is no doubt that the interests of justice would warrant free legal aid where the Applicant did not have the means to engage his own legal counsel. ln this regard, 17 18 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania Judgment, op. cit., para. 114. lbid, para. 123. See also Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania Judo op. 138 and 139 20 ^rrQ* o J