at a time he could only properly speak and understand French undermined his right to a fair trial. 67. The Applicant also avers that he expressed his language limitations to the court and requested an interpreter during the committal proceedings, which were conducted in a language he did not understand. He further contends that his failure to repeatedly point this out does not mean that the violation should be overlooked given that the Respondent State had an obligation to provide language assistance at all stages due to the gravity of the offence and the nature of the sentence he faced. 68. During the public hearing, Counsel for the Applicant reiterated these arguments and further submitted that the fact that the Applicant was able to follow part of the proceedings and pleaded not guilty did not mean that he understood English in a way that relieved the Respondent State from its obligation to provide an interpreter. Counsel averred that, had the Applicant been afforded language assistance in the four hours following his arrest, "he would not be in the situation he is in today" as he would have understood the reason for being detained, the extent of the accusations he was facing including their gravity, the existence of his right to have access to a lawyer of his choice to assist him in preparing his defence and the consequences of giving a statement to authorities that could later on be used against him. 69. The Applicant also claims to have raised the issue of his statement being tampered with because he noticed the statement produced in court had fewer pages than the one he made. 70.lt is the Respondent State's contention that the Applicant was "duly conversant" in the English language and that he never raised his language limitations. The Respondent State asserts that the Applicant faced a language barrier only during the trial when witnesses testified in Kiswahili and he was provided with an interpreter. 71. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant was represented at the preliminary hearing and his lawyer should have informed the court if the Applicant had been unable to understand the proceedings. 19