*** 84. The Court recalls, with respect to whether the Applicant was allowed to communicate with a lawyer, that, generally, access to a lawyer is a fundamental right especially in a case where a person is accused of murder and faces the death sentence. 20 85. The Court refers to the facts as earlier established regarding the allegation that language assistance was not provided during the police interrogation. According to these facts, the Applicant did not demand the assistance of a lawyer before or while giving his statement despite the fact that the police asked him whether he wished to do so in the presence of any person of his choice. Furthermore, the record of the proceedings in the High Court shows that the Applicant acknowledged meeting with a lawyer on 6 October 2005, which was the day of his arrest and this meeting was before he gave his statement. He also requested and was given a phone, and spoke to a lawyer 21 86. As a consequence, the Court dismisses the allegation of violation of Article 7( 1)(c) of the Charter with respect to the right to have access to a lawyer. c. The right to consular assistance 87. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State did not facilitate consular assistance, which he avers should not be confused with legal assistance. 88.ln response to the Court's enquiry into the kind of assistance he expected, the Applicant referred to Article 36(1 )(b) and (c) of the VCCR as quoted earlier, and avers that once he requested consuiar assistance, it was the Respondent State's obligation to ensure he was granted the same, timely and effectively. He alleges that the failure to do so constituted an infringement of his right to a fair trial. It is the Applicant's contention that, had the Respondent State provided consular assistance, he would 20 21 Mohamed Abubal(ari v. Tanzania, op. cit., § 121. See Record of Proceedings, High Court of Tanzania at Moshi, Criminal Case No 40 of 2007, page 134. 23