Assistance in Africa (Bangalore Principles)43 which provides that “Lawyers, in protecting the rights of their clients … shall at all times act freely and diligently in accordance with the law and recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession”. The Court is of the view that Counsel for the Applicant in the present Application did not meet the standard of the Bangalore Principles in this regard. 90. Having found so, this Court observes that the Court of Appeal, should not only have reprimanded the Advocate but ordered that the Applicant be provided with another Advocate to represent him. This would have addressed the Applicant’s concern about the bias by the Court of Appeal as justice should not only have been done but be seen to be done. 91. In view of the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to effective legal representation protected under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR due to the failure to sanction counsel representing the Applicant for what it considered to be inappropriate and unethical behaviour, and for its failure to provide the Applicant with different free legal representation. ii. On the alleged failure to try the Applicant within a reasonable time 92. The Applicant alleges that the trial process was unduly prolonged thus violating his right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. * 93. In response, the Respondent State avers that proceedings in the Applicant’s case were not unduly prolonged as the relevant procedure was observed under the Tanzania laws. The Respondent State further contends that because of the nature of the offence committed by the Applicant, it had to 43 https://achpr.au.int/index.php/en/node/879, Paragraph I(i). 25