legal assistance should be effective even though provided under a stateorganised legal scheme.22 In particular, the Court has previously held that effective representation should be one that provides counsel with sufficient time and means to prepare an adequate defence at all stages right from the arrest of the individual, without any interference.23 However, the quality of defence and nature of instructions between the client and counsel is not within the responsibility of the Respondent State which may intervene only when manifest failures are brought to its attention.24 Given that the Applicant was provided with counsel appointed by the Respondent State, the relevant issue is whether the said assistance was effective. 92. As it emerges from the record that, while the Applicant avers that his lawyers only met with him very briefly on two occasions prior to his trial, he was represented during the conviction and sentencing proceedings both before the trial and appeal courts. Furthermore, and in respect of the submission that lack of time did not permit counsel to investigate his personal, social and health history, the Applicant does not adduce evidence that authorities of the Respondent State restrained counsel in any manner. In any event, the Applicant does not demonstrate a case of failure by the Respondent State to consider a request for more time before and after the commencement of the proceedings. Notably, the fact that the trial was delayed by more than six (6) years, and requests were made by the lawyers for expedited proceedings, presented an opportunity for counsel to seek for time and means to undertake greater and more thorough investigation as they wished. In such circumstances, this Court considers that the allegation is not sufficiently substantiated, and, therefore, dismisses the same. 93. The Applicant also claims that the second appointed counsel lacked the experience and specialisation to adequately represent him because he 22 Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) §§ 107-114; Amini Juma v. Tanzania, op. cit., §§ 91-98. 23 Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 109. 24 Ibid, § 108. 25