00093 0 iii. Allegation of failure to provide the Applicant with free legal assistance 66.The Applicant contends that the Respondent State has violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, claiming that he did not benefit from free legal assistance at both the trial and appeal stages of his case. 67. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant's lack of legal representation did not occasion miscarriage of justice. Citing Article 7(1 Xc) of the Charter, the Respondent State avers that the Applicant made a deliberate decision to defend himself. The Respondent State refers to the Case of Melin v France in which the European Court of Human Rights held that an accused who decides to defend himself is required to show diligencelT; and contends that the Applicant did not do so. The Respondent State therefore argues that it did not violate the Applicant's right to legal aid. 68.Therefore, according to the Respondent State, it is not sufficiently clear from the provisions of Article 7 (1Xc) that the State must provide free legal aid for every criminal trial, and that if an Applicant wants legal representation he is required to make such an application to the State or non-governmental organisations. lt contends further, that the right to legal representation is not an absolute right but it is subject to a request of an accused person and the availability of fi nancial resources. 69.Article 7(1Xc) of the Charter provides as follows "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: 17 Melin v. France, Appl. 12914187,22 June 1993, ECtHR, Series A, 261 18