Applicant, during the preliminary hearing, objected to the caution statement being tendered as evidence on the ground that his client did not speak Kiswahili at the time of its recording and had been beaten and forced to sign it. The trial court then ordered that a trial within a trial be conducted to determine whether the Applicant recorded the statement voluntarily. Furthermore, the Applicant recounted this concern during the trial.35 86. This Court observes that although the assessors determined that the Applicants recorded the extra judicial statements voluntarily, the Magistrate took note of the wounds on the bodies of the two Applicants, in particular on specific parts of the body where they allege to have been hit by police, as prima facie evidence of police brutality. This observation supports the Applicants’ claims that they were beaten and forced to sign statements recorded in Kiswahili, which they did not understand and which were never read back to them. 87. This Court observes that at different stages of the proceedings, the Applicants informed the police authorities, their lawyers and the trial court that they did not fully understand Kiswahili well, the language in which their interrogation and trial was conducted, and that, as a result, they were unable to participate meaningfully in those proceedings. However, they were instead beaten up by the police authorities and forced to sign the statements. 88. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, as read together with Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR, with regard to the alleged failure to provide the Applicants with interpretation services during their arrest, interrogation, detention and trial. 35 Record of proceedings, page 35/20. 26