demonstrate that the Applicants informed the domestic courts of the alleged shortcomings in their Counsel’s conduct in relation to their defence. 102. In view of the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State discharged its obligation to provide the Applicants with effective free legal assistance and also finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR. iv. On the failure to try the Applicants within a reasonable time 103. The Applicants submit that the unduly long delay during their trial is a clear violation of the Respondent State’s Criminal Procedure Act47 and their rights to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 14 of the ICCPR and Article 7 of the Charter, particularly when the conditions of detention are exceptionally harsh. They aver that this Court has appreciated the irreparable harm that ensues as a result of delays between arrest and trial, and has held that certain delays may justify a more lenient sentence on account of the psychological torment that results from keeping an accused person in a state of anxious uncertainty as to their future. According to them, the wait alone constituted weighty punishment that courts have recognized as requiring a remedy. The Applicants further submit that the right to be tried within a reasonable time has been identified by this Court as one of the cardinal principles of the right to a fair trial. 104. They argue that their case is not a complex one. It involves an allegation of murder based on eyewitness testimonies, including testimonies by lay witnesses, investigators, a ballistics expert, a post-mortem report and the statements of the co-accused. They aver that all this evidence was available to the prosecution within two months of the arrest and there is nothing to suggest the prosecution was awaiting the results of further investigations. 47 Act, Parts II and VI (Criminal and Penal Law Act, No. 09 of 1985 Part II, IV. (1985) (Tanz.) 31