78.ln light of the above, the Court finds that the lack of provision of an interpreter during the concerned proceedings did not affect the Applicant's ability to defend himself. 79. The Court consequently dismisses the allegation of violation of Article 7(1 )(c) of the Charter with regard to the right to be assisted by an interpreter. b. The right to have access to a lawyer 80. The Applicant claims that he was not provided with a lawyer during the recording of his police statement even though he requested one. This position was reiterated during the public hearing and the Applicant averred that he was detained for nine (9) days before being informed of his right to a lawyer of his choice, this being contrary to Article 7(1 )(c) of the Charter. 81. Without challenging the Applicant's allegation that he was not allowed to communicate with a lawyer during the police interview, the Respondent State avers that, under Section 54(1) and (2) of its Criminal Procedure Act, "upon request by a person who is under restraint", the police should facilitate "communication with a lawyer, a relative or friend of his choice". However, such request may be refused regarding a relative or friend if the police "believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to prevent the person under restraint from communicating ... for the purpose of preventing the escape of an accomplice ... or the loss, destruction or fabrication of evidence relating to the offence".'8 82.ln its oral submissions, the Respondent State asserts that the Applicant was presented with the opportunity to be represented by a lawyer. 83. The Intervening State contends that persons facing criminal charges must be provided legal assistance at all times during the proceedings, including at the first interrogation, and failure to do so violates the right to a fair trial. The Intervening State supports its contention by referring to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the matter of Abdulgafur Batmaz v Turkey.'9 Criminal Procedure Act [CAP 20 RE 2002J, Section 54(1) and (2). Abdu/gafur Batmaz v. Turkey, Applicalion No. 44023/09 Judgmenl (Merits and Just Satisfaction) ECHR (24 May 2016). 18 19 22