108. Nonetheless, the Court underscores that in the context of ensuring effective legal representation through a free legal assistance scheme, it is insufficient for a State solely to appoint legal counsel. The State must also guarantee that those rendering legal aid within the framework of such a scheme are granted ample time and resources to prepare and offer a proper defence at all phases of the legal proceedings. 109. In the instant Application, the question that arises is whether the Respondent State discharged its obligation to provide the Applicant with effective free legal assistance, and ensured that Counsel had adequate time and facilities to enable the preparation of the Applicant’s defence. 110. The Court observes, from the record, that the Respondent State furnished the Applicant with Counsel at its own expense throughout the proceedings before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It is noteworthy that during the preliminary hearing and the subsequent trial at the High Court, the Applicant was represented by Advocates Nasimire and Mushobozi. Additionally, at the Court of Appeal, the Applicant was provided the legal services of Mr. Deya Outa, a learned advocate who was also assigned by the Respondent State. 111. The Court also observes that there is no evidence on record indicating that the Respondent State obstructed the counsel’s access to the Applicant for consultation and defence preparation, nor is there any record of the Respondent State denying the Applicant’s counsel the necessary time and resources required for a comprehensive defence preparation. 112. Furthermore, the Court ascertains that there is no information to suggest that the Applicant notified the High Court or the Court of Appeal about any deficiencies in his counsel’s handling of his defence. The Applicant had the freedom to raise any concerns regarding his legal representation with the domestic courts but there is nothing on record showing that he did. 28