Chapter 6 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part I – From Investigation to Trial A particular problem is posed by trials in absentia. Without outlawing such proceedings altogether under article 14, the Committee has held that they “are in some circumstances (for instance, when the accused person, although informed of the proceedings sufficiently in advance, declines to exercise his right to be present) permissible in the interest of the proper administration of justice”; yet special precautions are called for in this respect, and “the effective exercise of the rights under article 14 presupposes that the necessary steps should be taken to inform the accused beforehand about the proceedings against him” under article 14(3)(a), although there must also be “certain limits to the efforts which can duly be expected of the responsible authorities of establishing contact with the accused”.65 The case of Mbenge The limits on the responsibility of domestic authorities to trace an accused person had not been reached in the case of Mbenge, where the State party had “not challenged the author’s contention that he had known of the trials only through press reports after they had taken place”. Although the two relevant judgements stated “explicitly that summonses to appear had been issued by the clerk of the court”, there was “no indication ... of any steps actually taken by the State party in order to transmit the summonses to the author, whose address in Belgium [was] correctly reproduced in” one of the judgements and “was therefore known to the judicial authorities”.66 Indeed, the fact that, according to the judgement in the second trial, the summons had been issued only three days before the beginning of the hearings before the court, confirmed the Committee in its conclusion “that the State party failed to make sufficient efforts with a view to informing the author about the impending court proceedings, thus enabling him to prepare his defence”. It had consequently violated article 14(3)(a), (b), (d) and (e) of the Covenant.67 ***** Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights was violated in the Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, where “the accused did not have sufficient advance notification, in detail, of the charges against them”; indeed, the indictment was presented on 2 January 1994, and the attorneys were only allowed to view the file on 6 January “for a very brief time”, with the judgement being rendered the following day.68 ***** 65 Communication No. 16/1977, D. Monguya Mbenge v. Zaire (Views adopted on 25 March 1983), UN doc. GAOR, A/38/40, p. 138, paras. 14.1-14.2. 66 Ibid., para. 14.2. 67 Ibid., loc. cit. 68 I-A Court HR, Castillo Petruzzi et al. case v. Peru, judgment of May 30, 1999, Series C, No. 52, p. 202, paras. 141-142 read in conjunction with p. 201, para. 138. 234 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers