142 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights that a magistrate should not have proceeded with the deposition of witnesses during a preliminary hearing without allowing the applicant an opportunity to ensure the presence of his lawyer.619 The Committee sees this as an obligation, imputable to the State, even where it is solely the fault of assigned counsel that s/he fails to attend a hearing.620 6.6.4 The right to independent, competent and effective legal representation In the context of criminal proceedings, Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR and Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR speak of the right to legal “assistance”. The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that this is much more than a right to the “nomination” of legal counsel on behalf of an accused and that the right to legal assistance must be practical and effective in order to provide an adequate defence.621 It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as having been practical and effective.622 This requires a balanced approach between the responsibilities and independence of legal counsel and the obligations of the competent authorities of the State. The Human Rights Committee has commented that a State is not to be held responsible for the conduct of a defence lawyer unless it was, or should have been, “manifest” to the judge that the lawyer’s behaviour or level of competence was incompatible with the interests of justice.623 Manifest misbehaviour or incompetence that is incompatible with the interests of justice has been found to exist, for example, where counsel has withdrawn an appeal in v Jamaica, HRC Communication 730/1996, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/D/730/1996 (1998); Aliev v Ukraine, HRC Communication 781/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/781/1997 (2003), para 7.3; Saidova v Tajikistan, HRC Communication 964/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/964/2001 (2004), para 6.8; Aliboev v Tajikistan, HRC Communication 985/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/985/2001 (2005), para 6.4; Khuseynova and Butaeva v Tajikistan, HRC Communications 1263/2004 and 1264/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1263–1264/2004 (2008), para 8.4; Pustovalov v Russian Federation, HRC Communication 1232/2003, UN Doc CCPR/ C/98/D/1232/2003 (2010), paras 6.4, 8.4; and Sobhraj v Nepal, HRC Communication 1870/2009, UN Doc CCPR/C/99/D/1870/2009 (2010), para 7.2; Larrañaga v the Philippines, HRC Communication 1421/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/87/D/1421/2005 (2006), para 7.6. 619 Brown v Jamaica, HRC Communication 775/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/65/D/775/1997 (1999). See also Hendricks v Guyana, HRC Communication 838/1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/838/1998 (2002), para 8.4. 620 Borisenko v Hungary, HRC Communication 852/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/852/1999 (2002), para 7.5. 621 Artico v Italy [1980] ECHR 4, para 33; Imbrioscia v Switzerland [1993] ECHR 56, para 38; and Daud v Portugal [1998] ECHR 27, para 38. 622 Kulikowski v Poland [2009] ECHR 779, para 57. 623 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 32; Taylor v Jamaica, HRC Communication 707/1996, UN Doc CCPR/C/60/D/707/1996 (1997), para 6.2; Chan v Guyana, HRC Communication 913/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/913/2000 (2006), para 6.2; and Hussain v Mauritius, HRC Communication 980/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/77/D/980/2001 (2002), para 6.3. See also Artico v Italy [1980] ECHR 4, para 36; Kamasinski v Austria [1989] ECHR 24, paras 33, 65; Daud v Portugal [1998] ECHR 27, para 38; and Czekalla v Portugal [2002] ECHR 662, paras 60, 62.