Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 relating to the situation in Northern Ireland.197 The principle of equality of arms: According to the case-law of the European Court, “the possibility for a prisoner ‘to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation’ features in certain instances among the ‘fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty’”; this is “the case in particular where the prisoner’s appearance can be regarded as a means of ensuring respect for equality of arms, one of the main safeguards inherent in judicial proceedings conducted in conformity with the Convention”.198 In order to ensure equality of arms it may thus be “necessary to give the applicant the opportunity to appear at the same time as the prosecutor so that he [can] reply to his arguments”, and, where this has not been done, article 5(4) has been violated.199 Similarly, article 5(4) requires “an oral hearing in the context of an adversarial procedure involving legal representation and the possibility of calling and questioning witnesses” “where a substantial term of imprisonment may be at stake and where characteristics pertaining to [the applicant’s] personality and level of maturity are of importance in deciding on his dangerousness”.200 Where the applicant’s counsel was, during the first thirty days of custody, “in accordance with the law as judicially interpreted, unable to inspect anything in the file, and in particular the reports made by the investigating judge and the ... police”, the European Court concluded that the procedure “failed to ensure equality of arms” and was not, therefore, “truly adversarial”; “whereas Crown Counsel was familiar with the whole file, the procedure did not afford the applicant an opportunity of challenging appropriately the reasons relied upon to justify a remand in custody”.201 Article 5(4) “does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of applications for release from detention”, but, where this is done, the State concerned “must in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance”, thereby also guaranteeing him or her “truly adversarial” proceedings.202 Differentiation in procedural requirements: The requirements of article 5(4) may differ somewhat depending on the specific ground on which the person concerned has been detained under article 5(1)(a)-(f). For instance, contrary to decisions on deprivations of liberty taken by administrative authorities, following which the individual concerned “is entitled to have the lawfulness of the decision reviewed by a court”,203 the review required by article 5(4) “is incorporated in the decision depriving 197 Eur. Court HR, Case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A, No. 145, pp. 34-35, paras. 63-65. 198 Eur. Court HR, Case of Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A, No. 318-B, p. 45, para. 47; emphasis added. 199 Ibid., p. 48, para. 58. 200 Eur. Court HR, Case of Hussain v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, p. 271, paras. 59-60. Yet the Court has also accepted that the submission of written comments would have constituted “an appropriate means” of having the applicant benefit from an adversarial procedure; see Eur. Court HR, Sanchez-Reisse Case v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A, No. 107, p. 19, para. 51; article 5(4) was violated in this case. 201 Eur. Court HR, Lamy Case v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A, No. 151, pp. 16-17, para. 29. 202 Eur. Court HR, Case of Toth v. Austria, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A, No. 224, p. 23, para. 84. 203 Eur. Court HR, Luberti Case v. Italy, judgment of 23 February 1984, Series A, No. 75, p. 15, para. 31. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 203