such evidence is in conformity with the relevant provisions of applicable international human rights instruments.s 69.|n view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the evidence of the national courts has been evaluated in conformity with the requirements of fair trial within the meaning of Article 7 of the Charter. 70.The Court thus dismisses the Applicant's allegation that he had been ch,arged and convicted on the basis of a single deposition which does not corroborate the particulars on the charge sheet, and holds that there was no violation of Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter in this regard. B) The allegation that during the proceedings fhe Applicant was not affo rded leg a I assisfance 71.|n the Application, it is alleged that the Respondent violated the Applicant's right to be represented by Counsel. 72.The Respondent argues that the Applicant has not raised this issue before the national courts. lt submits that it has gone through the records of the court procedure as well as the two appeal procedures, and no where did the Applicant solicit legal assistance and was denied such assistance by the certification authority. 73.The Respondent further maintains that the Applicant nonetheless has legal means to solicit legal assistance in accordance with Article 3 of the law on legal assistance (Criminal Procedure), [Chapter 21 Revised Edition 2002]; that he could have also sought such assistance during the procedure before the Court of Appeal under Rule 31(1), Part ll of the 2009 Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, but he had not availed himself of the said remedies. 8 Mohamed Abubakai v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/20 June 2016, paragraph 26 udg ) tr/ 17 .rl+. l ry- tl t ,'-l' L- i." ) &/ -"L/ G