87. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time guaranteed under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. ii. Alleged violation of the right to have effective representation 88. The Applicant alleges that his attorneys did not have adequate time or facilities to prepare his defence, and one of them laboured under a conflict of interest having defended two co-accused of the Applicant at an earlier stage of the same case. According to the Applicant, state-provided attorneys in the Respondent State are poorly paid and, in the present case, could not afford the costs of travel to the prison. Additionally, his second appointed counsel was inexperienced as he had been called to the bar only a year before his appointment. He also avers that the Respondent State denied him access to his attorneys; time, funds and facilities to conduct full investigation into his social and health history and funds to summon witnesses. The Applicant also avers that his lawyers did not identify or call any defence witnesses and that he had only two brief meetings with them before the trial. 89. In its response to the initial Application, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant was defended by state-appointed counsel before the High Court and the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant entered his defence and exercised his right to appeal, and the allegations, therefore, lack merit and should be dismissed. *** 90. Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that every individual shall have “the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice”. 91. The Court recalls that the above stated right should be understood not strictly as having to choose one’s own counsel but more importantly that 24