Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement 6(3)(c) of the European Convention, an accused who deliberately avoids appearing in person still retains his or her right to be defended by a lawyer.98 Moreover, in the Pelladoah case the Court emphasized that “everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be defended by counsel”, but that “for this right to be practical and effective, and not merely theoretical, its exercise should not be made dependent on the fulfilment of unduly formalistic conditions: it is for the courts to ensure that a trial is fair and, accordingly, that counsel who attends trial for the apparent purpose of defending the accused in his absence, is given the opportunity to do so”.99 The case of Kamasinski In the case of Kamasinski, where the applicant had a legal aid counsel appointed to represent him in court proceedings concerning fraud and misappropriation, the European Court observed that “‘a State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes’”, and that it “follows from the independence of the legal profession from the State that the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal aid scheme or be privately financed”. In the view of the Court “the competent national authorities are required under article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some way”.100 In this case, the Court carefully examined the applicant’s complaints concerning his legal aid counsel but concluded that there was “no indication ... that in the pre-trial stage the Austrian authorities had cause to intervene as concerns the applicant’s legal representation” and that it could not be found on the evidence before the Court that the domestic authorities had “disregarded the specific safeguard of legal assistance” under article 6(3)(c) “or the general safeguard of a fair trial under paragraph 1”.101 However, during the trial itself a dispute occurred between the applicant and his lawyer with the result that the latter asked the court to be discharged from the case, a request the court refused. Although “the Austrian judicial authorities were thus put on notice that, in Mr Kamasinski’s opinion, the conditions for the conduct of the defence were not ideal”, the European Court concluded that article 6(1) and (3)(c) had not been violated.102 98 Eur. Court HR, Case of Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A, No. 297-B, para. 40 at p. 35 and Eur. Court HR, Case of van Geyseghem v. Belgium, judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports 1999-I, pp. 140-141, paras. 35-36. 99 Eur. Court HR, Case of Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A, No. 297-B, p. 35, para. 41. 100 Eur. Court HR, Kamasinski Case, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A, No. 168, pp. 32-33, para. 65. 101 Ibid., p. 34, para. 69. 102 Ibid., paras. 70-71. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 273