assistance scheme.40 It further held that what matters is whether the
accused is given effective legal representation rather than whether he or
she is allowed to be represented by a lawyer of their own choosing. 41 The
Court reiterates that it is the duty of the Respondent State to provide
adequate representation to an accused person and intervene only when the
representation is not adequate.42 If, however, there are allegations of
ineffective legal representation, it is important, that all such allegations must
be backed by evidence.43
123. As was recognised in Gozbert Henrico v. Tanzania,44 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 depends, essentially, on
the relationship between the client and his representative. The State should
intervene only where the lawyer’s manifest failure to provide effective
representation is brought to its attention. The Court, however, recalls that
with regard to effective legal representation through a free legal assistance
scheme, it is not sufficient for a State to provide counsel. The State must
also ensure that those who provide legal assistance under that 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.
124. In the instant Application, the question that arises is whether the
Respondent State discharged its obligation to provide the Applicant with
effective free legal assistance, and ensured that Counsel had adequate time
and facilities to enable the preparation of the Applicant’s defence.
125. The Court notes that the Respondent State provided the Applicant counsel
at its expense during the proceedings before the High Court. The Court in
40
ECHR, Croissant v. Germany (1993) App No.13611/89, § 29; Kamasinski v. Austria (1989) App No.
9783/82, § 65
41 ECHR, Lagerblom v. Sweden (2003) App No 26891/95, §§ 54-56.
42 ECHR, Kamasinski v. Austria, § 65.
43 Ibid., § 75.
44 Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania, (merits and reparations), §§ 108-109.
36