ss"11 , and expects a example that "the trial judge is the ultimate guardian of fairne 1 more pro-active attitude of the trial judge . 2 s that have been 154. Therefore, looking at the European Court's case- law, delay between courts , attributed to the State in criminal cases include the transfer of cases communication of the hearing of cases against two or more accused together, the ls. 13 judgment to the accused and the making and hearing of appea unreasonable not 155. On the basis of the above , this Court concludes that the time was ants, but more so because of the complexity of the case, nor the action of the Applic judicial authorities. because of the lack of due diligence on the part of the national the case on ice for a The Court cannot condone the Respondent's action of putting still investigating period of almost two years on the ground that the authorities were of co-accused from the matter or because they were waiting for the extradition in breach of Article another foreign jurisdiction . The Court thus finds the Respondent to be tried within a 7 (1 )(d) of the African Charter, which guarantees the right reasonable time. e to provide b. Alleged violation of Article 7 on account of alleged failur Applicants with legal aid of 31 March 2014, the 156. In their Application dated 23 July 2013 and their Reply during the Public Applicants were silent on the question of legal aid . However, applied for legal Hearings, they raised the issue and stated that they need not have late Judges had an aid for it to be granted, but rather, the trial magistrate and Appel aid, according to the obligation to enquire into whether or not they qualified for legal s) Act. criteria set out in Section 3 of the Legal Aid (Crim inal Proceeding 11 ' 2· 13 (Appl. No 32771196) ECtHR 24 Septem ber 2002 lbtd N Mole and c. Harby, The Right to a Fair Trial, Human Rights Handbooks No 45 3, pp. 27 - 28.