that the counsel for the Applicant was indeed ineffective, the latter had a chance of recusing them before the trial judge which he did not do. 90. In his Reply, the Applicant avers that his claim is not being denied counsel of his choice as the Respondent State contends but rather that he did not have practical or effective defence at all. *** 91. The Court recalls that, as it has held in Marthine Christian Msuguri v. United Republic of Tanzania, the right to defence as provided for in Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter should be understood to mean that legal counsel should be effective even if provided by the State.33 The Court has also held that for representation to qualify as effective, it should be one that provides counsel with sufficient time and means to prepare an adequate defence at all stages right from the arrest of the individual, without any interference.34 As the Court has held, it is the Respondent State’s duty to provide adequate representation to an accused and intervene only when the representation is not adequate.35 The question to be determined is whether counsel provided by the Respondent State, in the Applicant’s case was effective. 92. The Court notes that the Applicant alleges that his counsel did not call any defence witnesses despite there being witnesses who could aid his defence. The Court also notes that there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the Respondent State impeded the counsel who it designated to represent the Applicant, to access him and consult him on the preparation of his defence. The Court also notes that there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the Applicant informed the domestic courts of the alleged shortcomings in the counsel’s conduct in relation to 33 Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 91 and Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 84. 34 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, § 109 and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. The Republic of Libya (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 153, § 93. 35 Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), ibid, § 106. 25