iii. Alleged failure to provide effective legal representation 100. The Applicant asserts that the Respondent State provided him with an ineffective legal aid counsel. This, according to him, violates Article 14 of the ICCPR and Article 7 of the Charter. He states that his counsel had neither the time nor facilities to prepare his defence. The Applicant states that he saw his Counsel for the first time in court on the day his trial began, nine (9) years after his arrest. He avers that his Counsel was inadequately prepared for trial, and this was compounded by the inevitable loss of evidence due to the long period between his arrest and trial. He maintains that the right to legal aid is not satisfied by the formal appointment of a lawyer, but requires that the legal assistance be effective and the state to take positive action to ensure that the Applicant effectively exercises his right to legal assistance. * 101. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant was accorded legal Counsel throughout his trial and the service rendered by the Counsel was effective and in fact if there was any sign of ineffectiveness, it would already take actions to ensure justice is rendered to both the Defence and Prosecution side. 102. Furthermore, the Respondent State asserts that while it acknowledges the entitlement of every accused individual to legal counsel in capital offenses, it asserts that fulfilling the requirements for all accused individuals may not be feasible, and, therefore, it cannot be held accountable for every deficiency on the part of a lawyer appointed for the purpose of legal aid. *** 103. The Court observes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that, “[e]very individual shall have the right to have [their] cause heard. This comprises…the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of [their] choice.” 26