specialised in land law, and joined the bar only a year before he was appointed. 94. The Court observes that, having been afforded legal representation in domestic proceedings, the Applicant was at liberty to raise the lack of experience and expertise of the state-appointed counsel both before the trial and appellate courts. In making this claim in the present Application, the Applicant ought to have also substantiated the lack of experience or expertise by proving how counsel failed to discharge specific duties falling within their mandate. 95. In such circumstances, this Court does not have the required elements to undertake the necessary assessment of the claims made in the present Application. The allegation is accordingly dismissed. 96. Regarding the issue whether counsel laboured under conflict of interest, it emerges from the proceedings before domestic courts that counsel initially appointed in this case had first represented the Applicant and two coaccused during the preliminary hearing. However, when the charges were dropped against the two co-accused, the same lawyer rejoined the Applicant’s defence team. 97. This Court considers that its findings regarding the issue of experience and expertise of appointed-counsel apply in respect of the claim that is being examined here. A serious claim such as that of conflict of interest ought to be backed with evidence, which is lacking in the present Application. The mere fact that appointed-counsel was retained after charges against the Applicant’s co-accused were dropped cannot be sufficient to establish a conflict of interest. Especially in an instance where the state appointedcounsel was selected from a pre-determined roster under an established legal aid scheme, evidence of specific unethical or similar behaviour is needed to be proved to make a successful case of conflict of interest. In the circumstances, this Court finds that such case has not been made. The allegation is therefore dismissed. 26