74. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegations and holds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1) of the Charter. ii. Alleged violation of the right to legal representation 75. The Applicant alleges that since he did not have legal representation, the Court of Appeal duty-bound to ensure that his rights were safeguarded during the hearing of his appeal. He further alleges that his right to a fair trial was violated due to the fact that he did not have counsel to assist him. 76. The Respondent State did not submit on this point. *** 77. 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 [one’s] choice.” 78. The Court has previously 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),19 and determined that the right to defence includes the right to be provided with free legal assistance.20 79. In the instant case, the Court observes from the record that the Applicant had personal conduct of his case at all stages of the domestic proceedings despite facing a serious charge of armed robbery carrying a minimum thirty (30) years’ prison sentence. This notwithstanding, the Applicant conducted his case before all domestic courts. 80. The Court has consistently held that any indigent person charged with serious offences which carry heavy sentences, must be afforded free legal 19 The Respondent State became a State Party to the ICCPR on 11 June 1976. Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 114; Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 72; Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 104. 20 19