00088s
83. The Applicants further argue that the national courts have a duty
to inform an accused
person of all their rights at the beginning of the trial and they cited Thomas Miengi v
Republic of the High Court of Tanzania.
84. The Respondent State contends that the allegation is baseless and the Applicants
have not demonstrated how they were denied the right to information.
85. The Court notes that, the Applicants allege the violation of
their right to information as
a result of the Respondent State's failure to inform them of their right to legal
representation. The Court is of the viewthat the substance of theApplicants'allegation
relates more to the right to a fair trial, specifically, the right to be informed of one's
right to Counsel than to the right to information and will deal with it accordingly.
86.The Court observes that although Article 7 of the Charter does not expressly provide
for the right to be informed of one's right to Counset, Article 14 (3) (d) of the
lnternational Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)ls require that in criminal
cases, any accused shall be informed of his right
to legal
representation. As
repeatedly affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, the right to be informed
of one's right to a lawyer is critical to the respect for one's right to defence and
authorities owe a positive obligation to proactively inform accused individuals of their
right to legal representation at the earliest time.16
87.1n the instant case, the Respondent State does not dispute the Applicants' allegation
that they were not informed of their right to Counsel at the time or prior to their trial,
but simply argues that their contention is baseless. The Court also found nothing on
the record showing that this was done by the authorities of the Respondent State. Nor
are there any justifications provided by the Respondent State as to why the Applicants
ls The Respondent State became a State Party to ICCPR
on on
16
1
1 June '1976.
See for example, Panovits v. Cyprus, Application no. 4268l}4,judgment of 1'l December 2008, g 7275,_Padalov v. Bulgaria, Application no. 54784/00, 10 August 2006, g 61
21
€-.--