Court finds that the Applicant had previously addressed to CRIET a letter indicating that he did not intend to appear in person and requested to be tried in his absence. 173. The Court notes that the right to be assisted by counsel is practical and effective such that its exercise is not to be subjected to excessive formalism . Given the effectiveness of the Applicant's right to defence, CRIET needed to avoid such formalism, and by so doing preserve the fairness of the proceedings. The Court considers that in the instant case the proportionality between CRIET's order for the Applicant to appear in person and safeguarding the rights of the defence has not been observed, and holds that failure by a duly summoned accused to appear cannot deprive him of his right to be represented by counsel. 174. The Court holds in conclusion that the Applicant's right to be represented by counsel before CRIET, guaranteed by Article 14.3(d) of ICCPR has been violated. iii. Alleged violation of the principle of "non bis in idem"22 175. Invoking Article 14(7) of ICCPR, the Applicant submits that the Respondent State 's justice system tried him twice for the same facts, in breach of the principle of "non bis in idem". 176 . He argues that no provision of Law No. 2018-13 amending and supplementing Law No. 2001-37 of 27 August 2002 on Judicial Organization in the Republic of Benin has made CRIET a superior court to retry offences within its jurisdiction, as well as offences tried before the entry into force of the law that established it. He also argues that, in this case, the facts referred to CRIET, have already been the subject of a judgment at the first instance and that CRIET cannot therefore retry the case. The Applicant submits that the Respondent State clearly violated Article 14(7) of ICCPR. * See Article 4 of Protocol NO.7 to the Convention for the Prot Freedoms of 22 November 1984. 22 I