effective assistance by failing to provide competent representation that is
adequate to ensure a fair trial or, more broadly, a just outcome.44
98. The Court has also previously held that a State cannot be held responsible
for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid
purposes. The quality of the defence provided is essentially a matter
between the client and his representative and the State should intervene
only where the lawyer’s manifest failure to provide effective representation
is brought to its attention.45
99. This Court observes, with regard to effective legal representation through a
free legal assistance scheme, that it is not sufficient for a State to simply
provide free legal assistance. States must also ensure that lawyers
appointed to provide legal assistance under such scheme, have enough
time and facilities to prepare an adequate defence, and to provide robust
representation at all stages of the legal process starting from the arrest of
the individual for whom such representation is being provided.
100. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicants were both
represented by a counsel during the arraignment and by another during the
trial. The Court observes that there is nothing on the record to demonstrate
that the Respondent State impeded counsel from accessing the Applicants
and consulting them on the preparation of their defence, or denied the
designated Counsel adequate time and facilities to enable the Applicants to
prepare their defence.
101. The Court has held in its jurisprudence that allegations relating to counsel
not raising or objecting to certain evidentiary issues in relation to his/her
clients defence, should not, in these circumstances, be imputed to the
Respondent State.46 More importantly, there is nothing on the record to
44
ECHR, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 336; 686 (1984), 336; Lafler v. Cooper, 566. No 10209 slip. op. (2012) (erroneous advice during plea bargaining).
45 ECHR, Vamvakas v. Greece (no. 2), 2870/11, § 36; Czekalla v. Portugal, §§ 65 and 71; Czekalla v.
Portugal, App. No. 38830/97, ECHR 2002-VIII).
46 Henerico v. Tanzania, supra, § 113.
30