whether he or she is allowed to be represented by a lawyer of their own choosing.43 104. The Court considers that, “effective assistance of counsel” comprises two aspects.44 First, defence counsel should not be restricted in the exercise of representing his client. Second, counsel should not deprive a client of effective assistance by failing to provide competent representation that is adequate to ensure a fair trial or, more broadly, a just outcome.45 105. The Court has 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.46 106. This Court notes, with regard to effective legal representation through a free legal assistance scheme, that it is not sufficient for a State to simply provide a legal representative. States must also ensure that those who provide assistance 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. 107. In the instant case, the Court notes that during the arraignment, the High Court granted the prayer by the Applicant’s Counsel, Advocate Alli Chamani to assign different counsel to the Applicant and the co-accused, after discovering a conflict of interest between two accused brothers. The Applicant was therefore represented by Advocate Alli Chamani during the 43 ECHR, Lagerblom v. Sweden (2003) App No. 26891/95, §§ 54-56. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I) page 256, §§, 333-335. 45 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). 46 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). 44 29