82. The Court notes that Article 36 of the VCCR imposes dual obligations to the receiving State and also provides the detainee with individual rights. The first obligation is the duty to inform the Applicant of his right to consular services and the second is to facilitate the provision of consular services at the request of the Applicant. The second duty is contingent on the request from the detainee, after the latter has been informed of their right to consular services. Therefore, in determining the Applicant’s claim that the Respondent State failed to facilitate his access to consular services from his country of origin, this Court will consider a two-stage process as envisaged under Article 36(1) of the VCCR. First, that the detainee can request for consular assistance and second, the State of residence is under an obligation to inform the detainee of his right to consular services. 83. On the first issue regarding a detainee’s request for consular services, the Court is cognizant of the fact that prompt consular assistance may be decisive in the outcome of criminal proceedings, to the extent that it guarantees the foreign detainee the protection of his country of nationality, particularly with regard to: accessing consular officials; obtaining advise on his constitutional and legal rights in his own language in a manner comprehensible to him and receiving proper legal counsel to enable him understand the legal consequences of the crime of which he is accused. 84. In the instant case, the record of proceedings and the other pleadings on file are silent on whether or not the Applicant requested to be provided consular services as a foreign national. Nevertheless, this Court observes that the Applicant could only have requested for the provision of consular services after being informed by the Respondent State about his entitlement to receive consular services as a foreign national. 85. On the second issue as to whether the Respondent State discharged its obligation to inform the Applicant, who is a foreign national, of his right to consular services, the Court is of the considered view that it is imperative that the minimum guarantees of criminal justice be applied and interpreted in accordance with the VCCR in order to guarantee due process. These 22