000sl 8 prosecuting authorities claim, in the specific circumstances of the case, wherein there are signs of contradiction between the statements given by the witnesses, all of whom are relatives of the victim, especially the fact that the accused was not assisted by counsel, it would have been desirable for the prosecuting authorities to exercise greater effort in terms of due diligence to corroborate the victim's statements and clarify the circumstances of the crime. 78. ln view of the aforesaid, the Court accordingly considers that the Applicant's right to a fair trial provided for in Article 7 of the Charter has been violated, as the victim's and Prosecution witnesses' statements were not corroborated, and the circumstances of the crime were not clarified. iii. 79. Alleged violation of the right to legal aid The question of legal aid was not raised expressly in the Application. However, in his Reply, the Applicant refutes the Respondent State's arguments regarding legal aid, claiming that the only established procedure in Section 3 of the Legal Aid Act is that the judicial authorities order the provision of legal aid where such aid is deemed justified if the interests of justice so demand. *** 80. The Respondent State contends that at all stages of the proceedings before its judicial authorities, the Applicant never requested for Iegal aid, nor did he make any such request to the various Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that provide such assistance; and never declared his indigent status in order to qualify for the same. 81. The Respondent State submits that legal aid is mandatory for those accused of manslaughter and murder, and does not require an express request by the accused. lt, however, further submits that legal aid is not an absolute right and that States exercise the margin of appreciation in granting such aid within the limits of their capacity; and this is how the current legal aid regime operates in the country. lt states also that, with res to the Court itself, Rule 31 of the 7 \6v-q_ f