been provided with legal assistance, particularly when one has to consider the kind of evidence that should ordinarily be adduced to defend oneself against the offence of rape. 59. The Court notes that with regard to the provision of legal aid to accused persons under the Respondent State, it revised its Legal Aid Act. In this regard, the Court observes that while the revised Legal Aid Act 2017, provides for legal aid for accused persons upon the certification of the judicial officer, it does not address the issue raised by the Court in its previous judgments25 that accused persons charged with serious offences carrying heavy sentences should be granted free legal assistance as a matter of course. As such, the Court considers that the Legal Aid Act 2017, is not fully aligned with its case law and the Charter. 60. In view of the above, the Court holds that the Respondent State violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR owing to its failure to provide the Applicant with legal aid throughout his trial. B. Alleged violation relating to the Applicant’s conviction and sentence 61. The Applicant avers that he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment on the basis of a charge that had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and in non-conformity with international law standards. He further avers that the PF 3 (Medical report) did not provide evidence of the commission of the offence of rape, rather it simply established that the victim was 32 weeks pregnant. He argues that this being the case, a paternity test should have been conducted, particularly since the victim’s medical form, stated that the father of the child was “Boniphace James” and not “Boniphace Alistedes” as reported by the victim. 25 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 159; Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 236. 17