96. The Applicant contends that in his case, he received inadequate legal representation throughout the various stages of the criminal proceedings. At the pre-hearing stage, he was assigned the same counsel as his brother Evaristo Lazaro, the co-defendant, whose confession served as primary evidence against the Applicant at the trial. This amounted to an egregious, insurmountable conflict of interest. He adds that the fact that he was initially jointly represented by the same lawyer, may have increased the likelihood of his conviction. 97. The Applicant further argues that his Court-appointed counsel failed to adequately represent his interests, in part by not consulting him during the preparation stage. He only met with him at the commencement of the trial, failed to raise key factual and legal issues for review, failed to object to the admission of evidence such as the investigators report and post-mortem report and failed to call two witnesses to testify on his behalf. 98. He argued that had his lawyer met him earlier before his trial, the outcome could have been different. Finally, he alleges that he was not availed free legal assistance at all to assist in his petition for review. Thus, every stage of his defence was critically undermined by failings which either alone or jointly amounted to manifest lack of effective legal representation, which was tantamount to having no legal representation. * 99. The Respondent State reiterates that the proceedings provided a fair trial since all the requirements of Article 7 Charter were complied with. The Respondent State further avers that if there was any misdirection, it would have been addressed by the Court of Appeal when it reviewed the proceedings and judgment of the High Court. In the end, the Court of Appeal determined that there was no need to interfere with the decision of the High Court since the Applicant was properly convicted and thus, no miscarriage of justice was occasioned to the detriment of the Applicant. 27