0008? ll B. Allegation relating to failure to provide the Applicants with free legal assistance 70.The Applicants contend that they were not provided with free legal representation throughout their trials at the domestic court even though this is required by the lnternational Convention on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14(3) and under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 71. Citing the judgment of the Court in Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania and Thomas Miengi v Republic of the High Court of Appeal, the Applicants argue that they were charged and convicted of "a very serious offence" which carries a "serious punishment of imprisonment", and the trials were very technical requiring legal knowledge and skills. ln addition, the Applicants indicate that they did not have the financial means to hire their own lawyers while the Respondent State had the benefit of the representation of various state attorneys. According to the Applicants all these circumstances justified the provision of free legal assistance and the failure of the Respondent State to do so disadvantaged them and violated their right to a fair trial. 72.fhe Respondent State refutes the allegation of the Applicants and submits that the Applicants should be put to strict proof. lt argues that the right of legal assistance is not mandatory in its domestic laws and that the provision of legal aid is contingent on the accused person not having the means to afford Counsel and only if the interests of justice so require. 73.Further, the Respondent State avers that the fact that the Applicants were unrepresented does not imply that they were disadvantaged in any way. ln this vein, it contends that the Applicants' right to defence was guaranteed before the District Court and the appellate courts. Citing its Criminat Procedure Act [2002], the Respondent State submits that in its jurisdiction, evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused to ensure that the accused is well informed at the stage of defence. 18