85. Given the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State has violated the Second Applicant’s right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, due to its failure to accord him free legal assistance during the proceedings before the domestic courts. B. Allegation relating to the Second Applicant’s sentence 86. The Second Applicant avers that the Respondent State violated Article 7(2) of the Charter when it meted the sentence of life imprisonment to him for the offence of gang rape contrary to Section 131 A (1) and (2) of the Penal Code. The Applicant submits that he was only 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence, therefore the lawful sentence should have been corporal punishment in terms of section 131 A (3) of the Penal Code and not a sentence of life imprisonment. 87. The Respondent State did not make any submission in respect of these allegations. *** 88. The Court notes that the following two issues arise from the Applicant’s allegations in light of the proceedings before domestic courts: Firstly, (i) whether the new provisions of the Penal Code should have been applied to the Applicant retrospectively; and, secondly, (ii) whether his age at the time when the offence was committed should have been considered in sentencing him. i. On the retroactive application of the new law to the Applicant 89. The Court notes that Article 7(2) of the Charter provides that: No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made 22