96. The Court has also determined that where accused persons are charged with serious offences which carry heavy sentences and they are indigent, free legal assistance should be provided as of right, whether or not the accused persons request for it.30 97. The Court observes that although he faced a serious charge of armed robbery which may carry a life-sentence, with or without corporal punishment, nothing on the record shows that, the Applicant was informed of the right to legal assistance or that should he be unable to pay for such assistance, it would be provided to him free of charge. 98. The Court has also previously held that, the obligation to provide free legal assistance to indigent persons facing serious charges which carry a heavy penalty is for both the trial and appellate stages.31 99. In view of this, the Respondent State’s claim that the Applicant ought to have requested for free legal representation and that this would be availed depending on available resources, is unjustified. 100. The Court, therefore, finds that, by failing to provide the Applicant with free legal representation during the domestic proceedings the Respondent State violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR. iii. Allegation that evidence was not properly examined and evaluated 101. The Applicant claims that the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State did not properly examine and evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, contrary to his right to have his cause heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. * 30 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 123; Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 78; Onyachi and Another v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 104 and 106. 31 Thomas v. Tanzania, ibid, § 124; Nganyi and 9 Others v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §183. 24