000t?s crimes, that is, armed robbery and unlawfulwounding, carrying a severe punishment of 30 years and 12 months imprisonment, respectively, there is no doubt that the interest of justice would warrant free legal aid provided that the Applicant did not have the required means to recruit his own legal counsel. ln this regard, the Respondent State does not contest the indigence of the Applicant nor does it argue that he was financially capable of getting a legal counsel. ln these circumstances, it is evident that the Applicant should have been given free legal aid. The fact that he did not request for it is irrelevant and does not shun the responsibility of the Respondent State to offer free legal aid. 80. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter. B Alleged violation of the right to equatity before the law and equal protection of the Iaw 81. The Applicant asserts that the court of Appeat, while examining his appeal, did not consider all the relevant facts and arguments that he submitted relating to the evidence used to convict him. By doing so, the Applicant argues that the Respondent State violated his fundamental right under Articles 3 (1) and (2) of the Charter, which requires every individual to be entitled to equal protection of the law. 82. The Respondent State on the other hand contends that Article 13 (6) of its constitution provides a similar provision as Article 3 of the charter, which guarantees the right to equal protection of the law. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant was not discriminated against during his trial and was treated fairly in accordance with the law, he was given the right to be heard and defend himself in the presence of his accusers and the opportunity to cross examine all witnesses; and he had also the right to appeal. 83. The Court notes that Article 3 of the Charter guarantees the right to equality and equal protection of the law in the following terms "1. Every individual shall be equal before the law 20 g--