Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement is entitled to recommend that an appeal should not proceed, he should continue to represent the accused if the latter so wishes. Otherwise, the accused should have the opportunity to retain counsel at his own expense.91 It is thus essential under article 14(3)(d) that the domestic court “should ensure that the conduct of a case by the lawyer is not incompatible with the interests of justice”, and the Committee will itself examine whether there are any indications to show that the lawyer “was not using his best judgement in the interests of his client”.92 ***** The Inter-American Court of Human Rights concluded that article 8(2)(c), (d) and (e) had been violated in the case of Suárez Rosero, where the victim had been held in incommunicado detention for 36 days, during which time he was unable to consult any lawyer. After the end of his incommunicado detention he was allowed to receive visits from his lawyer although he was “unable to communicate with him freely and privately”, the interviews being conducted in the presence of police officers.93 Article 8(2)(d) was also violated in the case of Castillo Petruzzi where “the victims were not allowed legal counsel between the time of their detention and the time they gave their statements” to the police, when they “were assigned court-appointed lawyers”. When they were finally allowed “legal counsel of their choosing, the latter’s role was peripheral at best” and they were only allowed to have access to the case file the day before the ruling of the court of first instance.94 ***** With regard to article 6(1) taken in conjunction with article 6(3)(c) of the European Convention, the European Court has held that “it is of capital importance that a defendant should appear, both because of his right to a hearing and because of the need to verify the accuracy of his statements and compare them with those of the victim – whose interests need to be protected – and of the witnesses”.95 Accordingly, the “legislature must ... be able to discourage unjustified absences”.96 Without deciding “whether it is permissible in principle to punish such absences by ignoring the right to legal assistance”, the Court concluded in the Poitrimol case that there was a breach of article 6, since the applicant had been deprived of his right to appeal to the Court of Appeal because he had provided no valid excuse for not attending the hearing. In the view of the European Court, the suppression of the right to legal assistance “was disproportionate in the circumstances”, in which the applicant was not even allowed to be represented by his legal counsel.97 In conclusion it can be said that, under article 91 Ibid., loc. cit. See also Communication No. 461/1991, G. Graham and A. Morrison v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 25 March 1996), in UN doc. GAOR, A/51/40 (vol. II), pp. 48-49, para. 10.5. 92 Communication No. 708/1996, N. Lewis v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 17 July 1997), in UN doc. GAOR, A/52/40 (vol. II), pp. 251-252, para. 8.4. 93 I-A Court HR, Suárez Rosero case v. Ecuador, judgment of November 1997, in OAS doc. OAS/Ser.L/V/III.39, doc. 5, 1997 Annual Report I-A Court HR, p.301, para. 83 read in conjunction with p. 292, para. 34.g and h. 94 I-A Court HR, Castillo Petruzzi et al. case v. Peru, judgment of May 30, 1999, Series C, No. 52, pp. 203-204, paras. 146-149 read in conjunction with p. 202, para. 141. 95 Eur. Court HR, Case of Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A, No. 277-A, p. 15, para. 35. 96 Ibid., loc. cit. 97 Ibid. 272 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers