assistance scheme.40 It further held that what matters is whether the accused is given effective legal representation rather than whether he or she is allowed to be represented by a lawyer of their own choosing. 41 The Court reiterates that it is the duty of the Respondent State to provide adequate representation to an accused person and intervene only when the representation is not adequate.42 If, however, there are allegations of ineffective legal representation, it is important, that all such allegations must be backed by evidence.43 123. As was recognised in Gozbert Henrico v. Tanzania,44 a State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes. The quality of the defence provided depends, essentially, on the relationship between the client and his representative. The State should intervene only where the lawyer’s manifest failure to provide effective representation is brought to its attention. The Court, however, recalls that with regard to effective legal representation through a free legal assistance scheme, it is not sufficient for a State to provide counsel. The State must also ensure that those who provide legal assistance under that scheme have enough time and facilities to prepare an adequate defence, and to provide robust representation at all stages of the legal process starting from the arrest of the individual for whom such representation is being provided. 124. In the instant Application, the question that arises is whether the Respondent State discharged its obligation to provide the Applicant with effective free legal assistance, and ensured that Counsel had adequate time and facilities to enable the preparation of the Applicant’s defence. 125. The Court notes that the Respondent State provided the Applicant counsel at its expense during the proceedings before the High Court. The Court in 40 ECHR, Croissant v. Germany (1993) App No.13611/89, § 29; Kamasinski v. Austria (1989) App No. 9783/82, § 65 41 ECHR, Lagerblom v. Sweden (2003) App No 26891/95, §§ 54-56. 42 ECHR, Kamasinski v. Austria, § 65. 43 Ibid., § 75. 44 Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania, (merits and reparations), §§ 108-109. 36