Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement summoned “in a timely manner and informed of the proceedings against him” and the State party itself “must” in such cases show that the principles of a fair trial were respected.136 Where the State party merely “assumed” that the author had been summoned in a timely manner, the Committee considered that this was “clearly insufficient to lift the burden placed on the State party if it is to justify trying an accused in absentia”; it was “incumbent on the court that tried the case to verify that the author had been informed of the pending case before the proceeding to hold the trial” in his absence, but, failing any evidence that the court did so, the Committee concluded “that the author’s right to be tried in his presence was violated”.137 ***** As noted above, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that “the object and purpose” of article 6 of the European Convention “taken as a whole show that a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ is entitled to take part in the hearing”.138 In the case of Colozza and Rubinat, the Italian authorities had held a trial by default since they were unable to trace the applicant who had moved without leaving his address. He was eventually classified as a latinante, i.e. a person who is wilfully evading the execution of a warrant issued by a court. A court-appointed lawyer failed to appear at the trial, which had to be postponed, a procedure repeated since the second court-appointed lawyer also failed to appear. The trial was eventually concluded after the court had appointed, during the sitting, another official defence lawyer. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. A few months later he was arrested at his home in Rome. He filed a “late appeal” that was dismissed. The European Court agreed with the Government that “the impossibility of holding a trial by default may paralyse the conduct of criminal proceedings, in that it may lead, for example, to dispersal of the evidence, expiry of the time-limit for prosecution or a miscarriage of justice. However, in the circumstances of the case, this fact does not appear to the Court to be of such a nature as to justify a complete and irreparable loss of the entitlement to take part in the hearing. When domestic law permits a trial to be held notwithstanding the absence of a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ who is in Mr. Colozza’s position, that person should, once he becomes aware of the proceedings, be able to obtain, from a court which has heard him, a fresh determination of the merits of the charge.”139 The Court importantly added that “the resources available under domestic law must be shown to be effective and a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ who is in a situation like that of Mr. Colozza must not be left with the burden of proving that he was not seeking to evade justice or that his absence was due to force majeure”.140 136 Communication No. 699/1996, A. Maleki v. Italy (Views adopted on 15 July 1999), in UN doc. GAOR, A/54/40 (vol. II), p. 183, paras. 9.2-9.3. 137 Ibid., pp. 183-184, para. 9.4. 138 Eur. Court HR, Case of Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A, No. 89, p. 14, para. 27. 139 Ibid., p. 15, para. 29. 140 Ibid., para. 30 at p. 16. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 281