113. In view of all the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to effective representation and, therefore, did not violate Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. iv. Alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time 114. The Applicant avers that he suffered an unreasonably long delay before he was convicted and sentenced, considering that the Respondent State kept him in pretrial detention for over ten (10) years. The Applicant states that the pre-trial period far exceeds periods that have been found to be “unreasonable” in cases decided by the Court such as Alex Thomas v Tanzania. 115. The Applicant asserts that the delay is not justified as the case was not a complex one requiring extensive investigation. He states it involved an allegation of murder, based on the evidence of witnesses and his confession and no complex or advanced evidence was adduced such as DNA samples. The Applicant contends that the Respondent State has not provided an explanation as to why he was arrested on 30 April 2003 and his trial opened only on 26 September 2013 when the Prosecution called its first witness. He asserts that by this period, only the complexity of the case increased with the long passage of time and the key witnesses had moved away. 116. The Applicant also argues that the delay was not attributed to him as neither he nor his attorney delayed the proceedings. He states that the first documented court action took place only on 14 September 2012, when he was formally informed of the charges against him and served with the information. The Applicant recalls that a preliminary hearing was held on 21 November 2012 and the High Court later remarked on the delay that his case was “longstanding” and required immediate action. Notwithstanding this, according to the Applicant, it took another ten (10) months before trial began on 26 September 2013. 29