depending on availability of resources legal representation could be accorded. It is the Respondent State’s submission, therefore, that the fact that the Second Applicant had no legal representation, by itself, could not vitiate the domestic proceedings. 89. The Respondent State thus prays the Court to dismiss both Applicants’ allegations for being baseless and void of merit. *** 90. The Court observes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: … c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by Counsel of his choice”. 91. The Court notes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter does not provide explicitly for the right to free legal assistance. Nevertheless, the Court has held that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter can be read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as “ICCPR”),23 to establish the right to free legal assistance as a part of the general right to fair trial. The right to free legal assistance arises where a person cannot afford to pay for legal representation and where the interest of justice so require.24 The interest of justice require the provision of free legal assistance where, among others, the Applicant is indigent, the offence he/she is facing is serious and the penalty provided by the law is severe.25 92. The Court confirms, from the record, that both Applicants were not afforded free legal assistance throughout the proceedings in the national courts. The Court notes, in this connection, that the Respondent State’s argument has been to assert that legal assistance is not mandatory and that the 23 The Respondent State became a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 11 June 1976. 24 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 114. 25 Ibid, § 123. See also Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 138-139; Evarist v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 68; William v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 85; Anaclet Paulo v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 446, § 92. 24