34. Individuals are free to waive their rights of access to court by agreeing to arbitration. However, such agreements must be genuinely voluntary and must be subjected to careful review to ensure the applicant was not subject to constraint.554 They should also not prevent the right to access to a court. 555 35. If individuals cannot access the court or tribunal because of their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, not only will the right of access be violated,556 it is also likely this will violate provisions on non-discrimination and equality.557 36. Similar cases must be dealt with in similar ways, unless it is possible to justify on objective and reasonable grounds, different procedures for particular cases.558 37. The right of equal access to the courts applies both to the prosecution and defence.559 38. The right must also be practically viable: ‘a system in which an individual’s attempts to access the competent courts or tribunals are systematically frustrated…de facto runs counter to the guarantee of Article 14 of the ICCPR’.560 Therefore:     If there is insufficient information about the location and time of the hearing, this may violate the right of access. The layout of a building in which the court is housed needs to be considered if this impacts on the rights of persons with disabilities or older people.561 Legal assistance may be required to ensure access562 and imposition of fees or a uniform costs award563 have also been held by the Human Rights Committee to prevent access to justice.564 Requiring individuals to travel, for example, to a different location, to appeal a decision may be considered unreasonable and in violation of this right.565 554 Deweer v Belgium, European Court, 27 February 1980 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of Judges and Lawyers, A/HRC/8/4, para 35. 556 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 9; General Comment No.18 HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 146 (2003), para 7. 557 See e.g. Human Rights Committee, Communication 202/1986, Ato del Avellanal v Peru, 20 October 1988, para 10.2. 558 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 14. 559 Human Rights Committee, Communication 1086/2002, Weiss v Austria, 3 April 2003, para 9.6. 560 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 9; Communication 468/1991, Oló Bahamonde v Equatorial Guinea, 20 October 1993, para 9.4. 561 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, A/HRC/8/4, para 32. 562 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 10. 563 Human Rights Committee Communication 779/1997, Aarela and Nakkalajarvi v Finland, 24 October 2001, para 7.2. 564 Human Rights Committee Communication 646/1995, Lindon v Australia, 25 November 1998, para 6.4. 565 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, A/HRC/8/4, para 31. See also ECHR, Perez de Rada Cavanilles, 116/1997/900/1112, 1998. 555 104