175. The Court notes that while Article 7 of the Charter does not make an explicit provision of the right to consular assistance, the VCCR to which the Respondent State is a party does.81 Article 36(1) of the VCCR provides for the consular rights of the detained persons and duties and obligations of the State hence the determination of this allegation will be made in light of Article 36(1) of the VCCR. 176. The Court notes that in terms of Article 36(1) of the VCCR, consular assistance is facilitated in two ways, namely, when the receiving State informs the Applicant of this right or when the Applicant makes a request for consular services. In the instant case, the Court will determine the Applicant’s claim based on these considerations. 177. On the issue of request for consular assistance by the Applicant, the Court notes from the record before it that there is nothing to show that the Applicant made any request for consular assistance which was denied by the Respondent State. However, the Court holds that failure to request consular assistance by the Applicant does not absolve the Respondent State from its duty of informing him of his right as prescribed by Article 36(1) of the VCCR. 178. On the issue as to whether the Respondent State informed the Applicant of his right to consular assistance, the Court notes that within the meaning of Article 36(1) of the VCCR, the detainee must be informed of his/her rights to consular assistance at the time of his arrest or before he makes any statement or confession and also before the commencement of the trial process. 179. The Court notes that in the instant case, the record of the proceedings does not reveal that the Applicant was notified of his right to consular assistance. Further, the Court notes that the record of the proceedings shows that the domestic judicial authorities mentioned the Applicant’s nationality as a 81 Ratified by the Respondent State on 18 May 1977. 50