the special right to free legal assistance where the offence is serious and punishment prescribed by law severe".e 78.ln the instant case, the Applicant being in the same situation as described above, the Court holds that the Respondent should have offered him, propio motu and free of charge, the services of a lawyer throughout the judicial procedure. Having failed to do so, the Respondent violated Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter. C) The allegation that the thirty (30) year prison senfence was not in force at the time the robhery occurred 79.|n the Application, it is argued that the thirty (30) year custodial sentence imposed on the Applicant by the national courts was not in force at the time the alleged robbery with violence was committed; that Sections 285 and 2BG of the Penal Code prescribed a maximum sentence of fifteen (15) years; that the thirty (30) year prison sentence came into force only in 2004, following decree No. 269 of 2004, as amended, which became Section 287 A of the Penal Code. 80.The Applicant therefore submits, from the foregoing, that the national courts violated Articles 13(b) (c) of the 1997 Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania as well as Articles 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7(1) (c) and 7(2) of the Charter. 81.The Respondent refutes the Applicant's allegations in their entirety. lt contends that in Criminal Case No. 42412002, the Applicant had been accused of armed robbery which is contrary to Sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Tanzania; that at the time of conviction and determination of the punishment, the Minimum Sentence Act of 1972 was in force, that, that Act was amended in 1994 by the s Judgment of 3 June 2016, paragraph 139. See also AIex Thomas vs Tanzania, Judgment of 20 November 2015, paragraph 124. ublic ol (8 19 {: u ( --;)) ./ L { @_ A,I ',t