iii. On the failure to provide effective legal representation 89. The Applicants aver that they were not afforded effective legal representation from their counsel for various reasons. They submit that their lawyers never visited them for the duration of their detention in prison before the commencement of the trial to receive instructions from them; never discussed their defence strategy, and did not identify potential witnesses to call on their behalf to corroborate or speak to their character, in particular, Mama Mboya, who allegedly hired them to commit the murder. 90. The First Applicant avers that his defence of alibi was not considered as his counsel refused to raise it on account that this information would confuse the Court. Furthermore, that the counsel faced a conflict of interest in representing both the First and Second Applicants because the Second Applicant allegedly confessed to the murder while at the same time maintaining his innocence. He argues, that in the circumstances, it would be impossible for the same legal counsel to provide effective legal assistance and to act in the best interests of both Applicants. Relying on a host of cases from various courts,36 he surmises that legal aid is not just about providing free legal representation; but such representation must be effective. He argues that, in his case, the lack of adequate communication with his counsel was exacerbated by the fact that he was represented by a number of defence counsel throughout the course of the proceedings. 36 See, e.g., Hendricks v. Guyana (supra) § 6.4; and Communication No. 775/1997, Brown v. Jamaica, views adopted on 11 May 1999, § 6.6; See HRC Communications No. 985/2001, Aliboeva v. Tajikista, judgment of 16 November 2005, § 6.4; No. 964/2001, Saidova v. Tajikista, Judgment of 20 August 2004 § 6,8; No. 781/1997, Aliev. v. Ukraine, judgment of 29 August 2003, § 7.3; No. 554/1993, LaVende v. Trinidad and Tobago, Judgment of 14 January 1998, § 58); See e.g., Ocalan v. Turkey (supra), §§ 146147 and 153-154); Kelly v. Jamaica, Communication No. 537/1993, UN, Doc A/51/40, Vol. II, § 98; Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, ECtHR, Judgement of 21 April 2011, Application No. 42310/04, § 263); Salduz v. Turkey (ECtHR, judgment of 27 November 2008, Application No. 36391/01, §§ 58-63) ; Reid v. Jamaica, Communication No. 250/1987, UN. Doc A/45/40, Vol. II, § 85 (HRC 1990), (See Artico v. Italy, ECtHR, judgment of 13 May 1980, Application No 6694/74, §§ 29-41); (Communication 319/06 – Interights & Ditshwanelo v. the Republic of Botswana, § 69); Kamasinski v. Austria, Judgment of 19 December 1989, § 29; Sannino v. Italy; Czekalla v. Portugal, ECtHR, judgment of 10 October 2002, Application No. 38830/97, § 68); See Falcao dos Santos v. Portugal, ECtHR, judgment of 3 July 2012, Application No. 50002/08, §§ 44-46), etc. 27