that the Applicant made the allegations without substantiating his claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed this allegation for being unsubstantiated with respect to the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter. Considering the Applicant’s second allegation that the Respondent State violated his right to appeal to competent national organs as guaranteed under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter, the Court reiterated its jurisprudence that general statements that a right has been violated are not sufficient, and more substantiation is required. The Court having found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate how this right was violated and further, noting that the Applicant had exercised his right to appeal the decision of the trial court up to the Court of Appeal, which is the highest Court in the Respondent State, found that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to appeal to competent national organs guaranteed under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter. The Court then considered the Applicant’s third allegation that he was denied legal representation during his interrogation at the police station and throughout his trial contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. The Court considered that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter does not provide explicitly for the right to free legal assistance but that Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which the Respondent State is a State Party, does so explicitly. The Court observed, from the record of proceedings, and from the decisions of the domestic courts that the Applicant was not provided with legal representation, yet, he was charged with a serious offence of rape of a minor (12 years old), which carries a sentence of 30 years imprisonment upon conviction. Recalling its jurisprudence, the Court found that in such circumstances and in the interest of justice, free legal assistance should have been provided by the Respondent State whether the Applicant requests for it, and this should not have been contingent on the availability of financial resources. Consequently, the Court held that the Respondent State had violated the Applicant’s right to legal representation as 5