abduction and gang rape charge but found them guilty of rape on 30 November 2000 in Criminal Case No. 22 of 2000. The First Applicant was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment as the principal while the Second Applicant, who was aged 16 at the time of the offence, was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment as an abettor. The other two co-accused were acquitted of all charges. 4. The Applicants appealed the District Court’s decision through Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 68/2003 at the High Court in Tabora. In a decision of 18 May 2006, the High Court substituted the Applicants’ conviction of rape with a conviction of gang rape and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Applicants further appealed to the Court of Appeal respectively in Criminal Appeals No. 128 and 129 of 2007 where the appeals were dismissed in their entirety for lack of merit on 5 November 2009. 5. In 2010, the Second Applicant then filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision through Criminal Application No. 1 of 2010, which was dismissed on 4 August 2017 for lack of merit. B. Alleged violations 6. The Applicants allege that their right to defence was violated due to the failure of the Respondent State to provide them with legal representation, in violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter and Article 10(2) of the Protocol. 7. The First Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to have one’s cause heard under Article 7(1) of the Charter when the trial court combined his grounds of appeal with those of his co-appellant; relying on the evidence of close relatives, not fully evaluating their evidence and failing to produce Police Form 3 to prove the offence of rape. 8. The Second Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated Article 7(2) of the Charter when it meted the sentence of life imprisonment to him whereas the lawful sentence would have been corporal punishment in terms 3