80. The Court does not ignore the Respondent State’s submission that justice was served on time because the trial was completed within four (4) days and judgment was rendered two (2) days thereafter. This notwithstanding, the Applicant’s claims are rather in respect of the length of processes that took place prior to the commencement of the trial and completion thereof. 81. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court holds that the conduct of the Respondent State’s authorities does not portray due diligence as required under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 82. The Court thus finds that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter owing to the inordinate length of his pre-trial detention. ii. Alleged violation of the right to defence 83. The Applicant alleges that his right to defence has been violated due to the failure of the Respondent State to provide him with effective legal representation and by failing to provide him with an interpreter both during arrest and trial. 84. The Court will consider each of these two allegations in turn. *** 85. The Court notes that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that: Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice. 23