6.3 As to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (b) and (d), the Committee reaffirms that it is imperative that accused individuals be afforded adequate time for the preparation of their defence, and that they be provided with free legal assistance if they cannot themselves afford the services of a legal representative. In the present case, it is uncontested that legal assistance was provided to both Mr. Fillastre and Mr. Bizouarn. Nor has the State party's claim that the alleged victims have benefited from such assistance throughout the proceedings, and that they have been able to attend hearings before the court together with their representatives, been refuted. In these circumstances, the Committee does not find that either article 14, paragraph 3 (b), or article 14, paragraph 3 (d), has been violated. 6.4 As to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, the Committee observes that the author has stated in general terms that her husband and Mr. Bizouarn were held in custody for 10 days before being informed of the charges against them, and that they were not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. It remains unclear from the State party's submission whether the accused were indeed brought before a judge or judicial officer between their arrest, on 3 September 1987, and 12 September 1987, the date of their indictment and placement under detention, pursuant to article 194 of the Bolivian Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee cannot but note that there has been no specific reply to its request for information in this particular respect, and reiterates the principle that, if a State party contends that facts alleged by the author are incorrect or would not amount to a violation of the Covenant, it must so inform the Committee. The pertinent factor in this case is that both Mr. Fillastre and Mr Bizouarn allegedly were held in custody for 10 days before being brought before any judicial instance and without being informed of the charges against them. Accordingly, while not unsympathetic to the State party's claim that budgetary constraints may cause impediments to the proper administration of justice in Bolivia, the Committee conclude^ that the right of Mr. Fillastre and Mr. Bizouarn under article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, have not been observed. 6.5 Under article 9, paragraph 3, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge "shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time ...". What constitutes "reasonable time" is a matter of assessment for each particular case. The lack of adequate budgetary appropriations for the administration of criminal justice alluded to by the State party does not justify unreasonable delays in the adjudication of criminal cases. Nor does the fact that investigations into a criminal case are, in their essence, carried out by way of written proceedings, justify such delays. In the present case, the Committee has not been informed that a decision at first instance had been reached some four years after the victims' arrest. Considerations of evidence-gathering do not justify such prolonged detention. The Committee concludes that there has been, in this respect, a violation of article 9, paragraph 3. 6.6 The author has further alleged that her husband and Mr. Bizouarn have not been tried, at first instance, for a period of time that she considers unreasonably prolonged. Under article 14, paragraph 3 (c), the victims have the right to "be tried without undue delay". The arguments advanced by the State party in respect of article 9, paragraph 3, cannot serve to justify undue delays in the judicial proceedings. While the accused were indicted on -298-