release pending trial. Until conviction, s/he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable. 174. Continued detention can only be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 6 African Charter. The African Commission has repeatedly stated that the responsibility falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time. To this end they must, paying due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of the above-mentioned demand of public interest, hi the instant case the African Commission notes that the Victim spent only two days in custody before being granted bail, which in its view cannot amount to a violation of Article 6 within the circumstances of the case.34 The African Commission, 175. Declares that the Respondent State has not violated the Victim's right to personal liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest as provided in Article 6 of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 7 - right to have ones cause heard Article 7(c) and (d) of the African Charter states: (c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; (d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 176. The Complainant avers that the Victim was denied access to legal representation during his detention, and was only allowed access on the day he appeared in court constituting a contravention of his right to fair trial in that this refusal limited his ability to adequately prepare himself for Court beforehand. The African Commission notes that the Complainant have not advanced cogent evidence how the Respondent State violated Article 7(c) and (d) of the African Charter. It also notes that the Complainant have not addressed Article 7(d). 177. The Respondent State refutes the allegation. It argues that the Victim requested for legal representation and his lawyer was contacted and he briefed him and subsequently went to court on 16 January 2003 with that lawyer. The Respondent State avers that the Victim was detained for two nights, which cannot amount to a denial of access to legal representation. The Complainant did not address this issue in his rejoinder. 178. The African Commission has expounded in a number of cases what could constitute a violation of Article 7 of the African Charter. In the Jawara Case, for example, the African Commission stated that given that the Minister of Interior could detain anyone without trial for up to six months, ... the victims will be at the mercy of the Minister who, in this case, will render favour rather than vindicating a right. This power granted to the Minister renders valueless the provision enshrined in Article 7(l)(d) of the African Charter. Similarly in Communication 64/92-68/92-78/92_8AR: Krishna Achuthan (on behalf of Aleke Banda),Amnesty International (on behalf of Orton and Vera Chinua), Amnesty International (on behalf of Orton and Vera Chinua) v Malawi the African Commission stated that the fact that Vera and Orton Chirwa were tried before the Southern Region Traditional Court without being defended by a counsel constitutes a violation of Article 7(1) (1) [sic]. In the instant matter, the African Commission is aware that the Victim did not immediately have legal representation following his arrest, but such a representation came at least two days later. 179. The African Commission notes that the efficiency of justice is a major component of fair trial and of affective remedies. It is aware that a person charged with an offence must also have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence and be given the possibilities of a proper examination of materials and witnesses. Moreover, adequate legal and translation assistance must be provided, hi that regard it notes what the Human Rights Committee stated in General Comment 13 on 13 April 1984: 180. Sub-paragraph 3 (c) provides that the accused shall be tried without undue delay. This guarantee relates not only to the time by which a trial should commence, but also the time by which it should end and judgment be rendered; all stages must take place "without undue delay". To make this right effective, a procedure must be available in order to ensure that the trial will proceed "without undue delay", both in first instance and on appeal. 181. The African Commission also wishes to state that the 'reasonable time' standard set forth in Article 6 23