&37*HQHUDO5HSRUW 21. Similarly, the right of access to a lawyer should apply, no matter how “serious” the offence of which the person detained is suspected. Indeed, persons suspected of particularly serious offences can be among those most at risk of ill-treatment, and therefore most in need of access to a lawyer. Consequently, the CPT opposes measures which provide for the systematic denial for a given period of access to a lawyer for detained persons who are suspected of certain categories of offences (e.g. offences under anti-terrorism legislation). The question whether restrictions on the right of access to a lawyer are justified should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, not determined by the category of offence involved.6 22. The CPT fully recognises that it may exceptionally be necessary to delay for a certain period a detained person’s access to a lawyer of his choice. However, this should not result in the right of access to a lawyer being totally denied during the period in question. In such cases, access to another independent lawyer who can be trusted not to jeopardise the legitimate interests of the investigation should be organised. It is perfectly feasible to make satisfactory arrangements in advance for this type of situation, in consultation with the local Bar Association or Law Society. 23. The right of access to a lawyer during police custody must include the right to meet him, and in private. Seen as a safeguard against ill-treatment (as distinct from a means of ensuring a fair trial), it is clearly essential for the lawyer to be in the direct physical presence of the detained person. This is the only way of being able to make an accurate assessment of the physical and psychological state of the person concerned. Likewise, if the meeting with the lawyer is not in private, the detained person may well not feel free to disclose the manner in which he is being treated. Once it has been accepted that exceptionally the lawyer in question may not be a lawyer chosen by the detained person but instead a replacement lawyer chosen following a procedure agreed upon in advance, the CPT fails to see any need for derogations to the confidentiality of meetings between the lawyer and the person concerned. 6. Reference might be made here to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Salduz v. Turkey (27 November 2008), in which the Court found that “… Article 6§1 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided…, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right.” (paragraph 55).