000185 This Court has held in the past that "...general statements to the effect that a right has been violated are not enough. More substantiation is required".lo 58.The Court further notes that nothing suggests that the Court of Appeal,s assessment of the evidence was manifestly erroneous. Therefore, the Court holds that the alleged violation has not been proven and accordingly dismisses it. ii. AIIeged violation of the right to legal aid 59. The Applicant submits that "... he was not afforded legal representation, he was deprived of his right to have his cause heard", which had a prejudicial effect on him and that ... "such a position constitutes a violation of his fundamental rights as set forth in Article 7(1Xc) and (d) of the Charter, and also in Articles 1 and 107A(2)(b) of the Tanzanian Constitution." 60.He challenges the Respondent State's arguments, admits that he,,... never asked for legal aid", and that domestic law provisions on legal aid "... does not provide for a procedure or directives on how to seek legal aid." 61. The Respondent State refutes the Applicant's allegations that its domestic law does not provide for a procedure as to how to seek legal aid, and requests proof in that regard. lt contends that legal aid is provided in Section 310 of the Tanzanian Criminal Procedure Act, Section 3 of the Legal Aid Act and Rute 31(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. 62. lt further contends that, at any rate, the competent judicial authority applies for legal aid on behalf of the defendant, where required, provided the following conditions have been met: the defendant must be indigent and unable to pay lawyer's fees; and whether the interests of justice so demand. 10 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania Judgment, op cit., para. 140 74 C J S\