B. Alleged violation of the right to fair trial 84. Both Applicants alleged a violation of their right to fair trial through the denial of free legal assistance during domestic proceedings. Additionally, the Second Applicant alleges a violation of his right to fair trial through the manner in which the domestic courts treated the evidence preferred against him. i. Alleged violation of the right to free legal assistance 85. Both Applicants submit that during proceedings before the Respondent State’s courts, they were without the benefit of legal counsel as the Respondent State failed to accord them free legal assistance. They submit, therefore, that this is a violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as well as of the Respondent State’s own Constitution. * 86. The Respondent State submits that under section 310 of its Criminal Procedure Act the right to be represented or defended is not mandatory. It further submits that, in its legal system, “… legal aid at the district court, court of resident magistrate, High Court and the Court of Appeal, it is not compulsory. Conditions must be met to qualify for free representation by the State … that the Applicant was not represented by a counsel does not mean that he was disadvantaged in any way.” 87. Specifically in relation to the Second Applicant, the Respondent State argues that he was afforded the right to be heard during his trial and he was even able to call one witness in his defence. According to the Respondent State, therefore, the Second Applicant was not denied the right to be heard. 88. The Respondent State further argues that at the time of the Second Applicant’s trial, the right to legal representation was not absolute in its jurisdiction but required that one should make an application and that 23