109. By virtue of the above reasons, and regarding in particular the right to have the presence and assistance of lawyers of the Complainant’s own choosing, the Commission notes that this right has to be guaranteed by the Respondent State at each stage of the proceedings.25 The schemes used by the judicial authorities in this case seriously violate the right to legal representation. The gravity of these schemes derive from the fact that they led to the violation of a court decision ordering the Complainant’s release and extended the latter’s detention. As such, the Commission concludes that the rights protected under Article 7(1)(c) have been violated. Violation of Article 7(1)(d) 110. Article 7(1)(d) guarantees: “The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal”. The Complainant submits that these provisions were violated, indicating that he was detained beyond the maximum statutory detention period and the lack of diligent measures justifying the relevance of the successive extensions obtained by the several separations of the initial charges. The Commission will begin by examining the argument on the lack of trial within a reasonable time (first point) before examining the allegation of partiality (second point). 111. Regarding the first point, the Commission notes that from the letter of the aforementioned provisions, there is the right to be tried and the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In its jurisprudence on the assessment of the reasonableness of the timeframe for trial, the Commission adopts the criteria used by the European Court in the case of Buchholz v. Germany.26 In the case of Article 19 25 26 Guideline N(1)(d1). (ECtHR 6 May 1981). 32