66. The requirement of promptness refers to the need to provide the individual with the information as soon as they are formally charged or the individual is named publicly.625 67. This can be done orally or in writing, but if orally then it must be later confirmed in writing.626 68. The information should be detailed and include the charge, the acts alleged to have been committed and the law under which the charge falls.627 It should enable the individual to understand fully with what they are being charged and why. It may be possible to amend the indictment from that with which the individual was initially charged if the resulting conviction is based on the same facts.628 J. The right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence629 69. The adequate time requirement depends on the nature and complexity of the case.630 70. There should be disclosure of the evidence and documents the prosecution plans to present to the court,631 in particular, in the context of criminal proceedings, exonerating evidence,632 with sufficient time to examine it. For example, notification of the charges against the accused two days before trial will violate Article 14(1) and (3) of the ICCPR.633 Where there is a late change of lawyer an adjournment may be necessary.634 71. In some instances it may be appropriate not to disclose information if this is necessary for a legitimate aim, is strictly necessary and the measures are proportionate. This should then be counter-balanced by the court to ensure the defendant is still then able to answer the case against them. So, for example, if an individual is provided with summaries of information on grounds 625 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No.32 CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 31; and Marques de Morais v Angola, HRC Communication 1128/2002, 29 March 2005, para 5.4. 626 General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 31. 627 General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007)Ibid. Pélissier and Sassi v France [1999] ECHR 17, paras 51–52. 628 Human Rights Committee Communication 1128/2002, Marques de Morais v Angola, 29 March 2005, para 5.5. The European Court takes a more restrictive view, Sadak and Others v Turkey [2001] ECHR 479, para 57. 629 Article 14 ICCPR ; Article 16(2) Arab Charter. UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No.32 CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 32. 630 Williams v Jamaica, Human Rights Committee Communication 561/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/561/1993 (1997), para 9.3. 631 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 33. 632 Human Rights Committee Communication 904/2000, Van Marcke v Belgium, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/904/2000 (2004), para 8.3. 633 Human Rights Committee Communications 1152/2003 and 1190/2003, Bee v Equatorial Guinea, 31 October 2005, para 6.3. 634 Goddi v Italy. See also Communication 282/1988, Smith v Jamaica UN Doc. CCPR/C/47/D/282/1988 (1993), para 10.4; and Kurbanov v Tajikistan, 6 November 2003, para 7.3. 111