Court has held, it is the Respondent State’s duty to provide adequate representation to an accused and intervene only when the representation is not adequate.30 The question to be determined is whether counsel provided by the Respondent State for the Applicant was effective. 77. The Court notes that the Applicant alleges that his counsel did not call any defence witnesses despite there being witnesses who could aid in his defence. However, there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the Respondent State impeded the counsel who it designated to represent the Applicant, to access him and consult him on the preparation of his defence. Further, the Applicant does not aver that he informed the domestic courts of the alleged shortcomings in the counsel’s conduct in relation to his defence. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicant was free to raise, with the High Court and Court of Appeal, his discontent about the manner in which he was represented. Therefore, these allegations are not sufficiently substantiated, and, are accordingly dismissed. 78. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Respondent State discharged its obligation to provide the Applicant with effective free legal assistance. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter regarding the right to defence. b) On the failure to call additional witnesses 79. The Applicant alleges that the trial assessors improperly inferred that because his counsel failed to call witnesses, he did not have any evidence to support his alibi or his account of events more generally. The Applicant avers that when the assessors made it clear that the lack of additional witnesses prejudiced his defence, the Respondent State’s courts were obligated to seek further witness testimony, suo motu.31 30 Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), ibid, § 106. In terms of Section 231(4) of the Respondent State’s Criminal Procedure Act Cap 20 RE 2002, in cases whereby the accused person states that he has witnesses to call but they are not present in court and if the court is satisfied that the absence of the witnesses is not due to the fault or neglect of the accused person, the court may take steps to compel the attendance of such witnesses. 31 22