91. The Second Applicant on his part submits that, based on the case-law of this Court, although the Respondent State “cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes, it is for the competent authorities to take steps to ensure that the Applicant effectively enjoys the right [to counsel] in any particular circumstances.”37 He avers that State-provided attorneys in Tanzania are paid the equivalent of Thirty United States Dollars ($ 30) USD, which is not even enough to cover the cost of travel to the prison. 92. The Second Applicant further argues that he was significantly less culpable because witnesses observed that he was unarmed, and the proof against him was weaker. He asserts that an enterprising advocate would have exploited the relative differences in culpability and strength of evidence between the two co-accused to secure an acquittal, a lesser charge or a lesser sentence. However, his lawyer, having the same ethical obligation in respect of the first Applicant, was unable to present a vigorous defence. He surmises that in Abubakari v. Tanzania, the Court found a violation of the Charter when the domestic court did not push for further investigation into a conflict of interest that may “have affected the impartiality of the prosecution”. * 93. The Respondent State on its part submits that the Applicants were afforded legal representation as reflected in the proceedings of the trial and furthermore, represented by two different Advocates one at the preliminary hearing and the other during the trial. *** 37 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, § 106109 and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. The Republic of Libya (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 153, § 93. 28