his defence. The Court finds that the Applicant was free to raise, with the
High Court and Court of Appeal, his discontent about the manner in which
he was represented. Therefore, these allegations are not sufficiently
substantiated, and, are accordingly dismissed.
93. Regarding the Applicant’s allegation that he was unable to properly
communicate with his lawyer as he never met him outside of trial and as a
result could not direct him to collect critical evidence in his case, the Court
notes that the Applicant does not adduce evidence that authorities of the
Respondent State denied counsel the time and facilities to communicate
with him. The Court notes that these are matters between him and his
counsel which should not, in these circumstances, be imputed on the
Respondent State and as such dismisses these allegations.
94. The Court notes that the Applicant alleges that his lawyers did not arrange
for an interpreter or translator, or advocate on his behalf to ensure he was
given the opportunity to speak in his own defence. However, the Court
notes that the Applicant has not shown that the judicial authorities of the
Respondent State restrained counsel in any manner in seeking
interpretation during the proceedings. Further, the Court also notes that the
Applicant did not inform the domestic courts of counsel’s alleged
shortcomings in this regard. The Court also notes that the Applicant did not
point to any part of the proceedings where he expressly objected and
demanded the presence of an interpreter. In light of the above, the Court
dismisses this allegation.
95. With respect to the Applicant’s allegation that his lawyer failed to safeguard
his right to be tried without undue delay, the Court considers that this issue
should have been addressed between the Applicant and his counsel. The
Court notes that there is nothing on the record to show that the judicial
authorities of the Respondent State precluded counsel from bringing this
matter to the attention of the domestic courts. The Court reiterates its
position that the Applicant was free to inform the domestic courts of his
26