91. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the period to finalise the Applicant’s trial cannot be found to be unreasonable and, therefore, holds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. ii. Alleged violation of the right to legal representation 92. The Applicant claims that he was prejudiced because he was not was not provided with legal representation in the proceedings before the courts of the Respondent State in violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. * 93. The Respondent State disputes this allegation and argues that free legal representation in the Respondent State is mandatory only for specific offences, including treason, manslaughter and murder. For all other offences, legal aid is upon application by an incumbent. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant never applied for legal aid and claims that if the Applicant required legal representation, he should have applied for such from the State or from Non-Governmental Organizations which provide legal assistance to an incumbent who requires legal assistance. *** 94. According to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the right to have one’s cause heard includes “the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of [their] choice.” 95. The Court has interpreted Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter in light of Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),28 and determined that the right to defence includes the right to be provided with free legal assistance.29 28 The Respondent State became a State Party to the ICCPR on 11 June 1976. Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 114; Kijiji Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 72; Onyachi and Another v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 104. 29 23