discontent regarding representation by counsel. In view of these considerations, the Court dismisses this allegation. 96. Lastly, regarding the Applicant’s allegation that his lawyer failed to object to evidence adduced against him by the Respondent State, the Court observes that the allegation relates to the counsel not raising or objecting to certain evidentiary issues in relation to his defence. The Court notes that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the Respondent State impeded the counsel from accessing the Applicant in order to consult and prepare for his defence. The Court holds that it was not up to the domestic courts to conduct the Applicant’s defence hence these matters should not be imputed on the Respondent State. The Court holds that the State should intervene only where counsel’s manifest failure to provide effective representation is brought to its attention. In view of the above, the Court dismisses this allegation. 97. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Respondent State discharged its obligation to provide the Applicant with effective free legal assistance. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter regarding the right to defence. b. On the failure to provide an interpreter during arrest and trial 98. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to defence by failing to provide him with an interpreter both during arrest and trial. It is the contention of the Applicant that despite the fact that the police could not speak Kirundi, his native tongue, they purported to communicate with him by speaking a similar language, which is Kiha. He avers that no interpreter was provided to assist him in the preparation or review of his purported statement of answers to the police during interrogation and that the statement was written in Kiswahili, a language that he did not speak or understand. As a consequence of these failings, the Applicant avers, he discovered subsequently that the statement he had purported to give the police did not reflect the evidence he had given. He also submits that he 27