initially charged with the Applicant. Although it took a year for the medical report to be produced, it is notable that both trial and appeal courts set it aside, and conviction was based largely on post-mortem examinations and witness statements, which were all available within months of the arrest. Besides, at the preliminary hearing, the Applicant had already expressed his intent to proffer a defence of insanity. 85. The Court further observes that the Applicant did not act in any manner or make any request that contributed to the delay. Counsel for the Applicant rather consistently drew the attention of the judicial authorities on the fact that the accused had been in custody for too long, and the case suffered significant delay. Conversely, the Respondent State did not specifically address this issue in its response to the initial Application, nor did the prosecution justify the delays as emerging from domestic proceedings. Notably, in justifying the delay of three (3) years to consider the Applicant’s request for review the Respondent State advances the argument of contraints of the cause list of the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State avers that applications for review, are heard based on the principle of first in, first out. It follows that while there is no evidence that the Applicant contributed to the delay, the same cannot be said of the Respondent State’s judicial authorities. 86. Finally, as far as due diligence is concerned, this Court notes the Applicant alleges a delay of more than six (6) years. The Court observes that authorities of the Respondent State did not provide any explanation for the periods of two (2) years that elapsed before the prosecution filed the charges and one (1) year to produce the medical report at a state institution. There is also no justification for the period of a few more years adjournments on prosecution request to summon witnesses and contact a medical expert three (3) and four (4) years respectively after the charges were filed. These delays, and the lack of justification do not portray due diligence as required under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter and the above referenced case-law of this Court. 23