particular notes that during her arraignment and the preliminary hearing, the Applicant was represented by Advocate Laurian, while during the trial before the High Court, she was represented by Advocates Nasimire and Deo Mgengeli. At the Court of Appeal, the Applicant had the services of two learned advocates, Mr. Salum Amani Magongo, who was assigned to the Applicant by the Respondent State, and Mr. James Andrew Bwana, who was privately hired by the Applicant herself. 126. The Court further notes that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the Respondent State impeded the earlier listed counsel from accessing the Applicant in order to consult and prepare for her defence. The record also does not demonstrate that the Respondent State denied the Applicant’s counsel adequate time and facilities required to prepare the Applicant’s defence. 127. The Court further finds that there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the Applicant informed the High Court or the Court of Appeal of any shortcomings in counsel’s conduct of her defence. There is also no evidence on record to demonstrate that the Applicant intended to call witnesses but was hindered in this due to the conduct of her counsel. The Court notes that the Applicant was free to raise, with the domestic courts, her discontent about the manner in which she was represented, in particular, the fact that no defence witnesses were called to counter the prosecution’s case. The Court takes special notice of the fact that, before the Court of Appeal, the Applicant was represented by counsel of her own choice, in addition to the one appointed by the Respondent State. 128. Given all the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to effective representation and, therefore, did not violate Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 37