the lawyer withdrew his services for lack of cooperation from the Applicant, and that in any event, the Applicant was supposed to request for legal assistance if he felt he needed one. The Court also notes the Respondent State’s argument that the Applicant was able to defend himself at all stages of his trial. 110. The Court notes from the file that, during part of his trial, the Applicant was indeed represented by counsel, whom he had personally engaged. However, this was not the case throughout the trial and appellate proceedings. In any case, the failure of the Respondent State to provide the Applicant with free legal assistance at appellate levels is inconsistent with international human rights standards. 111. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent State has, by failing to provide the Applicant with free legal assistance during part of his trial and appeals in respect of the first case, Criminal Case No. 95/2003, violated the Applicant’s right to free legal assistance as guaranteed by Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR. v. Alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time in Criminal Case No. 194/2004 112. The Applicant alleges that immediately after his conviction in Criminal Case No. 194/2004, he filed an appeal before the High Court under Criminal Appeal No. 58/2006, challenging the decision of the District Magistrate Court. He indicates that the appeal was heard in June 2007 and scheduled for delivery of judgment but this had not happened by the time he filed his Application before this Court, on 19 January 2015. In his Reply, he further asserted that this appeal was pending until 20 March 2017. The Applicant contends that this delay is excessive for a criminal case and constitutes a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time contrary to Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 32