defence are permissible only if they are strictly necessary and the judge115 has access to all evidence and can rule on the question of disclosure.116 Adequacy of facilities includes access to legal materials, access to a copy of the text of the reasoned judgment, access to a medical examination as needed,117 and timely and unrestricted access to a lawyer.118 Article 6 paragraph 3 (c) of the European Convention states, “[In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled] to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require.” ��� It follows that a defendant is entitled to (1) defend him/herself in person, if she/he so chooses, (2) benefit from the legal assistance of his/her own choosing, or (3) be given legal assistance for free when s/he does not have sufficient means to pay for it and the interests of justice so require. The right of the defendant to defend him/herself in person is not absolute. The state has the option of���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ appoint�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ing����������������������������������������������������������������������������� a lawyer against the wishes of the defendant if it�������������������������� ���������������������������� is well justified in the 119 interests of justice. The right to benefit from legal assistance of his/her own choosing is not an absolute right either, as the state can place some restrictions on who can act as defence lawyers, e.g. specialized lawyers for supreme courts120 or professional lawyers instead of lay persons.121 If the defendant is poor and the interests of justice so require, she/he is entitled to free legal assistance. The defendant has the burden to prove his/her lack of sufficient means to retain a lawyer; however, this does not have to be “beyond all doubt.”122 In deciding whether the interests of justice require appointing a legal aid lawyer, the authority making the decision should consider one of the following: the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the potential sentence, “what is at stake for the accused����������������������������������������� ;���������������������������������������� ” or the complexity of the case and the personal situation of the defendant.123 The European Court further stated, “Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice in principle call for legal representation.”124 Legal assistance must be effective, as the European Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective, not theoretical or illusory.125 The requirement of “practical and effective” has served as the basis for further examination by the European Court of the quality of legal assistance provided to defendants. European Court case law on this issue, however, is underdeveloped and the subject continues to be debated at the national level. The legal assistance requirements are not met by the mere presence or nomination of a lawyer: “[M]ere nomination does not ensure effective assistance since the lawyer appointed 115 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Or another neutral authority, see for a discussion on this matter in Stefan Trechsel, Op. cit. p. 227. 116 ���� See Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom, Judgment of the European Court, 16 February 2000, para. 61-67. 117 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� See for details and examples of case law Stefan Trechsel, Op. cit., p. 236-241. 118 ���� See Ocalan v. Turkey, Judgment of the European Court, 12 May 2005, para. 131-137 where the Court considered that the restriction on the number and length of the applicant’s meetings with his lawyers was one of the factors that made the preparation of his defence difficult. 119 ���� See Crossant v. Germany, Judgment 25 September 1992, para. 34. 120 See Meftah and Others v. France, Judgment 26 July 2002, para. 47. 121 ���� See Mayzit v.Russia, Judgment 20 January 2006, para. 68. 122 ���� See Pakelli v. Germany, Judgment of the European Court, 25 April 1983, para. 34. 123 ���� See Quaranta v. Switzerland, Judgment of the European Court, 24 May 1991, para. 33-35. 124 ��������� See also Behnam v. UK, Judgment of the European Court, 10 June 1996, para. 61. 125 ���� See Artico v. Italy, Judgment of the European Court, 30 April 1980, para. 33. 63