103. In view of this, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s claim that free legal representation should first be requested by an applicant and that its provision depends on availability of resources. 104. 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. iv. Alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time 105. The Second Applicant alleges that after the Court of Appeal dismissed his Appeal, he lodged an application for review of the decision with the same Court on 19 April 2013, which he asserts was not heard while similar applications for review which were filed after his were heard by the said Court. Accordingly, he contends that the Respondent State has violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time contrary to Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 106. The Respondent State disputes the Second Applicant’s contention and prays that he should be put to strict proof thereof. It asserts that no evidence has been submitted by the Second Applicant to show that he lodged the alleged application for review. Furthermore, the Respondent State avers that applications for review are scheduled on a first come first served basis and also depends on the capacity of the judiciary to hold sessions. *** 107. Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter stipulates that the right to have one’s cause heard comprises “the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.” 108. The Court notes that the review procedure in the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal is not an automatic right and depends on the discretion of the same Court. However, the Court is of the considered view that once an applicant chooses to pursue this procedure, the demands of justice and 28