the judicial proceedings, The determination of what constitutes 'adequate time' requires an assessment of the individual circumstances of each case. In the instant case, it is uncontested that the author did not have more than half an hour for consultation with counsel prior to the trial and approximately the same amount of time for consultation during the trial; it is further unchallenqed that he was unable to consult with counsel prior to and during the appeal and that he was unable to instruct his representative for the appeal. "On the basis of the material placed before it, and bearing in mind particularly that this is a capital punishment case and that the author was unable to review the statements of the prosecution's witnesses with counsel, the Committee considers that the time for consultation was insufficient to ensure adequate preparation of the defence, in respect of both trial and appeal, and that the requirements of article 14, paragraph 3 (b), were not met." (annex IX, sect. J, paras. 8.3 and 8.4) 668. Pursuant to article 14, paragraph 3 (c), accused persons are to be tried without undue delay. In case No. 336/1988 (Nicole Fillastre v. Bolivia), the accused were indicted on several criminal charges on 12 September 1987; the determination of these charges had not resulted in a judgement, at first instance, nearly four years later; the State party had not shown that the complexity of the case was such as to justify this delay. The Committee concluded that article 14, paragraph 3 (c), was violated (annex IX, sect. N ) . 669. Article 14, paragraph 3 (d), gives every accused person the right to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; the provision also provides the right to have legal assistance assigned to the accused, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by the accused in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it. In finding no violation of this provision, in case No. 283/1988 (Aston Little v. Jamaica), the Committee observed that that provision did not entitle the accused to choose counsel provided to him free of charge (annex IX, sect. J ) . 670. In case No. 230/1987 (Raphael Henry v. Jamaica) the question at issue was whether an accused had the right to be present during the appeal although he was represented by legal counsel, albeit by substitute counsel. The Committee considered that once the author opted for representation by privately retained counsel of his own choice, any decision by this counsel relating to the conduct of the appeal, including a decision to send a substitute for the hearing and not to arrange for the author to be present, could not be attributed to the State party but instead lay within the author's responsibility. In the circumstances, the Committee found no violation (annex IX, sect. B ) . 671. In finding a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (d), in case No. 248/1987 (Glenford Campbell v. Jamaica), the Committee recalled that it was axiomatic that legal assistance be made available to individuals facing a capital sentence: "In the present case, it is uncontested that the author instructed his lawyer to raise objections to the confessional evidence, as he claimed this was obtained through maltreatment; this was not done. This failure -159-