Applicants did not suffer any disadvantage by conducting their own defence. 93. It is the Court’s finding, however, given that both Applicants were charged with a serious offence, to wit rape, which carries a minimum sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment, and that their indigence has not been questioned by the Respondent State, the interests of justice required that they should have been provided with free legal assistance. This obligation persisted regardless of whether or not the Applicants requested for free legal assistance. 94. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, due to its failure to accord the Applicants free legal assistance during proceedings before domestic courts. ii. Alleged violation of the right to have one’s cause heard 95. The Second Applicant argues that in his appeal before the Court of Appeal he submitted a memorandum with several grounds of appeal but that some of the grounds of appeal were not considered. It is this alleged failure to consider his grounds of appeal that he submits amounts to a violation of his Charter rights. * 96. The Respondent State submits that the Second Applicant’s allegation on this point is baseless and lacks merit since he has failed to point out which grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal failed to consider. It further argues that the Second Applicant raised six (6) grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal which nevertheless, upon assessment, decided to consolidate them into four (4) grounds of appeal. According to the Respondent State, consolidation of grounds of appeal is a normal practice which happens when an applicant has raised many issues which are interrelated. It is the Respondent State’s submission, therefore, that the Second Applicant did not suffer any prejudice due to the consolidation of the grounds of appeal 25