were still ongoing and the successive sessions should have followed their normal course. In making a determination on the issue at hand, it is also relevant to take into account the fact that, after the Applicant’s trial commenced on 31 May 2012, it was finalised within six (6) months. 69. In light of the above, and considering the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the time of five (5) years and three (3) months that elapsed from the Applicant’s arrest to the commencement of his trial cannot be considered as unreasonable within the meaning of Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 70. As a consequence, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. ii. Alleged violation of the right to defence 71. The Applicant alleges that his right to defence was violated due to the failure of the Respondent State to provide him with effective legal representation and to call additional witnesses. 72. The Court will consider each of these two allegations in turn. *** 73. The Court notes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice.” *** 20