a. On the failure to provide effective legal representation 86. The Applicant alleges that he was unable to properly communicate with his lawyer as he never met him outside of trial and as a result could not direct him to collect critical evidence in his case. The Applicant alleges that his lawyer did not arrange for an interpreter or translator, or advocate on his behalf to ensure he was given the opportunity to speak in his own defence. He submits that his lawyer failed to call any defence witnesses despite there being at least three (3) witnesses who could testify to his purchase of the bike found in his possession which the Respondent State alleged belonged to the deceased. 87. The Applicant also alleges that his lawyer failed to safeguard his right to be tried without undue delay and did not object to the long stay of proceedings in his trial in 2010, which lasted more than two (2) years. He also submits that his lawyer failed to object to evidence adduced against him by the Respondent State. He concludes that the representation provided by his different lawyers was ineffective and inconsistent and fell far short of the standard of being competent, capacitated and committed, violating his right to a fair trial. 88. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant was given legal representation and his appeal was entertained without any constraint before the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the Applicant’s allegation that his defence was critically undermined for failure of the defence counsel to call defence witnesses is baseless since he was given an opportunity and a right to call other defence witnesses which he did not exercise. 89. The Respondent State further argues that there is nothing from the record showing that the Applicant raised any objection before the domestic courts relating to how his Counsel carried out their duties to the detriment of the Applicant’s right to defence. The Respondent State contends that assuming 24