Chapter 6 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part I – From Investigation to Trial with the accused in conditions giving full respect for the confidentiality of their communications”, and lawyers “should be able to counsel and to represent their clients in accordance with their established professional standards and judgement without any restrictions, influences, pressures or undue interference from any quarter”.97 Where the author claimed that he did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, the Committee noted that he was actually “represented at trial by the same counsel who had represented him at the preliminary examination”, and further, that “neither the author nor counsel ever requested the Court for more time in the preparation of the defence”; consequently, there was no violation of article 14(3)(b).98 If the defence considers that it has not had sufficient time and facilities to prepare itself, it is thus important that it requests an adjournment of the proceedings. The Committee has however emphasized that “in cases in which a capital sentence may be pronounced, it is axiomatic that sufficient time must be granted to the accused and his or her counsel to prepare the defence for the trial”, and that “this requirement applies to all the stages of the judicial proceedings”; again, however, “the determination of what constitutes ‘adequate time’ requires an assessment of the individual circumstances of each case”.99 The case of Wright In the case of Wright, the author contended that he had not had adequate time for the preparation of the defence, “that the attorney assigned to the case was instructed on the very day on which the trial began”, and that, therefore, “he had less than one day to prepare the case”.100 The Committee accepted that “there was considerable pressure to start the trial as scheduled” because of the arrival of a witness from the United States and that it was “uncontested” that, as submitted by the author, the lawyer was appointed “on the very morning the trial was scheduled to start” and, accordingly, “had less than one day to prepare” the author’s defence; yet it was “equally uncontested that no adjournment of the trial was requested by” the author’s counsel.101 Consequently, the Committee did “not consider that the inadequate preparation of the defence may be attributed to the judicial authorities of the State party”, adding that “if counsel had felt that they were not properly prepared, it was incumbent upon them to request the adjournment of the trial”.102 It followed that there was no violation of article 14(3)(b) in this case. The applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to be executed. 97 Ibid., loc. cit.; emphasis added. 98 Communication No. 528/1993, M. Steadman v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 2 April 1997), UN doc. GAOR, A/52/40 (vol. II), p. 26, para. 10.2. 99 Communication No. 349/1989, C. Wright v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 27 July 1992), UN doc. GAOR, A/47/40, p. 315, para. 8.4; emphasis added. 100 Ibid., p. 311, para. 3.4. 101 Ibid., pp. 315-316, para. 8.4. 102 Ibid., loc. cit.; emphasis added. For a similar reasoning in a death penalty case see also Communication No. 702/1996, C. McLawrence v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 18 July 1997), UN doc. GAOR, A/52/40, p. 232, para. 5.10. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 245