B. Material jurisdiction regarding the alleged violation of the right to consular assistance 35. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to consular assistance provided for under Article 36(1 )(b) and (c) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (hereinafter referred to as "the VCCR") adopted on 22 April 1963. The Applicant specifically avers that, as a consequence, the Respondent State violated his right to a fair trial and, in particular, the rights to be assisted by an interpreter and to be represented by a lawyer. *** 36. Although the Respondent State did not raise an objection in relation to this point, the Court has to make a determination on whether it has jurisdiction to examine this allegation. 37. The Court notes in that respect that Article 36(1) of the VCCR to which the Respondent State became a party on 18 April 1977 provides for consular assistance. 7 As reflected in the said provision, consular assistance touches on certain privileges whose purpose is to facilitate the enjoyment by individuals of their fair trial rights including the right to be assisted by an interpreter and a lawyer, which the Applicant alleges was violated in the present Application. 38. Given that the said right is also guaranteed under Article 7(1 )(c) of the Charter read jointly with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the ICCPR")8 to which the Respondent State became a Article 36(1) reads as follows: M1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular (unctions relating to nationals of the sending State: (a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State; (b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. ... ; (c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. ..." 8 See Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania, op.ci/., §§. 137-138. See also, Application No. 012/2015. Judgment of 22103/18, Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania, §§. 110-111. 7 11