197. While it is not contested that there were delays, it is evident from the records that most of the delay was the result of the appellants own doing. It is clear from the judgment that a delay of up to six months between July and December 2001 when Mr. Brain Spilg SC was appointed pro deo to represent the appellant was caused because appellant rejected several pro deo counsels including Mr. Jouna and insisted on having Mr. Spilg SC appointed pro deo 198. AC HP R to represent him. As at the time Mr. Spilg accepted his mission, hearing had been set for the January 2002 session of the Court. While accepting his mission, Mr. Splig requested a postponement of the case to the July 2002 session of the Court on grounds of the voluminous nature of the records of proceedings, the fact that appellant‟s life was involved. During the intercession between January and July 2002, Mr. Spilg and Mack were conducting further investigations on Appellants behalf but once again the appellant was dissatisfied and dismissed them as his legal representatives as he felt his best interest were not being looked after. He later changed his mind and allowed them to continue to represent him. This caused another further postponement to January 2003 session of the Court at the instance of the defence. 199. At that session counsel filed arguments consisting of 52 pages on behalf of the appellant and 26 pages on behalf of the state with supporting documentation and authorities running over 1900 pages. In the circumstance, the Court was obliged to reserve its judgment. 200. In the light of the above, the African commission finds that the delays since 1993 were largely caused by appellants own actions and consequently cannot amount to a violation of the fair trial rights guaranteed under Art 7 (1)(d) of African Charter. 55