assistance to the Applicants during their detention. The failure to do so contributed significantly to the lack of a fair trial. 72. The Applicants submit that since they are refugees, separated from their families and indigent, they were unable to retain the services of a lawyer. They also reported having not received any information about the charges preferred against them until nearly a year and a half after their arrest, when they were brought to court and formally charged. They aver that because the Respondent State failed to notify them of their consular rights, they had no access to a consular officer from their embassy who could explain the judicial process to them in their native languages and inform their families about their detention. * 73. The Respondent State did not make any submission on this allegation. *** 74. This Court has held that the rights accruing from Article 36(1) of the VCCR are also protected under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter.24 As the Court stated in Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, “consular services are critical to the respect for the right to a fair trial of foreign detained nationals. Article 36(1) of the VCCR, explicitly requires State Parties to facilitate consular services to foreign nationals detained within their jurisdiction”.25 The Court notes that while Article 7 of the Charter does not explicitly provide for the right to consular assistance, the VCCR, to which the Respondent State is a party, does.26 Article 36(1) of the VCCR provides for the consular rights of the detained persons and duties and obligations of the State. Accordingly, the determination of this allegation will be made in light of Article 36(1) of the VCCR. 24 Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, §§ 95-96. Augustine v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 81. 26 Ratified by the Respondent State on 18 May 1977. 25 22