00 0 816 the Respondent State does not contest the indigence of the Applicant nor does it argue that he was financially capable of getting a legal counsel. ln these circumstances, it is evident that the Applicant should have been afforded free legal aid. The fact that he did not request for it does not exonerate the Respondent State from its responsibility to offer free legal aid. 87. As regards the allegations of the Respondent State relating to the margin of discretion that should be available to States in the implementation of the right to legal aid, its non-absolute nature and the lack of financial capacity, the Court is of the opinion that the allegations are no longer relevant in this case, given that the conditions for the mandatory provision of legal aid have all been met. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Respondent State has violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of Article 13(2) and (5) of the Constitution of Tanzania 88. The Applicant contends that Sections 130(2) (e) and 131(2)(a) of the Tanzanian Penal Code dealing with Offences against Morality that formed the basis for his conviction clearly violate Article 13(2) and (5) of the Tanzanian Constitution. 89. The Respondent State contests this allegation by arguing that the acts committed by the Applicant fall under the definition of the crime of rape, as perthe sentence of the trial court, which was upheld by the two appellate courts. *** 90. The Court observes that it is not mandated to assess the constitutionality of a specific national legislation. However, this does not prevent the Court from examining the compatibility of a particular domestic legislation with international human rights standards established by the Charter and any other international human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State.le le See para.29 of this judgment. 2L S