EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). Article 6 § 3 (d) enshrines the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all evidence against him must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument. Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of proceedings (see Lucà , cited above, § 39, and Solakov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” , no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001‑X). There are two requirements which follow from the above general principle. Firstly, there must be a good reason for the non-attendance of a witness. Secondly, when a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence may be restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (the so-called “sole or decisive rule”). It is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including the elements of such proceedings which relate to procedure, should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence, which means that both the prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party (see Belziuk v. Poland , 25 March 1998, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; and Dowsett v. the United Kingdom , no. 39482/98, § 41, ECHR 2003‑VII). The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the possibility to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Moiseyev , cited above, § 220, or Dolenec v. Croatia , no. 25282/06, § 208, 26 November 2009). The facilities which should be enjoyed by everyone charged with a criminal offence include the opportunity to acquaint himself, for the purposes of preparing his defence, with the results of investigations carried out throughout the proceedings (see C.G.P. v. the Netherlands , no. 29835/96, Commission decision of 15 January 1997, and Galstyan v. Armenia , no. 26986/03, § 84, 15 November 2007). Article 6 § 3 (c) does not specify the manner of exercising the right of access to a lawyer or its content. While it leaves to the States the choice of how this right is ensured in their judicial systems, the scope and content of that right should be in line with the objective of the Convention, namely, to guarantee rights that are practical and effective (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 135, ECHR 2005‑IV). Assigning counsel does not, in itself, ensure the effectiveness of the assistance he or she may provide the accused (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 95, 2 November 2010) and to that end, the following minimum requirements must be met. First, suspects must be able to have contact with a lawyer as soon as possible after they are taken into custody. Therefore, a suspect should be able to consult with his or her lawyer prior to an interview, or where there is no interview. The lawyer must be able to confer with his or her client in private and receive confidential instructions ( Lanz v. Austria , no. 24430/94, § 50, 31 January 2002). Secondly, the Court has ruled in previous cases that suspects have the right for their lawyer to be physically present during their initial police interviews and whenever they are questioned in subsequent pre‑trial proceedings ( Adamkiewicz v. Poland , no. 54729/00, § 87, 2 March 2010). This physical presence must enable the lawyer to provide assistance that is effective and practical rather than merely abstract and, in particular, to ensure that the defence rights of the interviewed suspect are not prejudiced. Respect for lawyer-client confidentiality is very important in the context of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) ( Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 97, 2 November 2010). An accused’s right to communicate with his advocate

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

73