a) On the failure to provide effective legal representation 74. The Applicant alleges that his defence was materially undermined by his own attorney’s failure to call or conduct a reasonable investigation to discover critical witnesses whose testimonies may have corroborated his testimony or contradicted testimony of the prosecution’s key witnesses in his defence. He submits that his counsel also failed to interview known witnesses to determine if they had information that could aid in his defence. The Applicant argues that counsel’s failure to call witnesses resulted in the assessors drawing adverse inferences against him which undermined both his alibi and his credibility generally. He submits that counsel should have anticipated that negative inferences would be drawn against his client and taken preventive measures. He concludes that the deficient legal representation fell far short of the standards of effectiveness required by the law and undermined his right to defence. 75. Without responding directly to the Applicant’s allegations, the Respondent State in its Response submits that the Applicant was represented by counsel and his rights were in no way curtailed. *** 76. The Court recalls that, as it has held in Marthine Christian Msuguri v. United Republic of Tanzania, the right to defence as provided for in Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter should be understood to mean that legal counsel should be effective even if provided by the State.28 The Court has also held that for representation to qualify as effective, it should be one that provides counsel with sufficient time and means to prepare an adequate defence at all stages right from the arrest of the individual, without any interference.29 As the 28 Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 91 and Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 84. 29 Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania ACtHPR, Application No. 012/2019, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (judgment), §§ 122-123; Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 109 and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. The Republic of Libya (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 153, § 93. 21