the guilt of the defendant before it is proved in a fair trial. For example, in a few cases monitors noted that the prosecutor used the term “criminal” while addressing the defendant. The degree to which the presumption of innocence is respected can also be inferred from the way the defendants are brought to court and held during trials. International fair trial standards require that “[n]o attributes of guilt [be] borne by the accused during the trial which might impact on the presumption of their innocence. Such attributes could include holding the accused in a cell within the courtroom, requiring the accused to wear handcuffs, shackles or a prison uniform in the courtroom, or taking the accused to trial with a shaven head in countries where convicted prisoners have their heads shaved.”110 In this regard, the Moldovan practice of holding defendants handcuffed or in metal cages throughout the trial is notable. These practices, however, must be balanced against the need to ensure public order and security in the courts, especially considering the insufficient number of judicial police and the fact that there have been cases (not during monitoring) when armed persons entered courtrooms and threatened judges. It should further be considered that such practices, in addition to raising concerns about the presumption of innocence, in some circumstances may amount to degrading treatment of the defendant.111 Judges �������������� should assess the appropriateness of these measures and should not apply them unless absolutely necessary. Monitors often noted the lack of ���������������������������������������������������� a��������������������������������������������������� judicial police officer in the court. This may be the principal reason why judges too often permit the use of handcuffs on defendants. 3.6. The Right to Legal Assistance and the Right to Adequate Time and Facilities Article 6 paragraph 3 (b) of the European Convention states, “[I]n the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.” It follows that the right has two dimensions: adequate time and adequate facilities. The case law of the European Court on this right falls more or less into these two categories. Adequacy of time does not have a clear definition in European Court case law. Adequacy of time depends on the complexity of the case and the stage proceedings have reached.112 The European Court will usually look into each case to decide whether the defence has been allowed sufficient time to prepare and put forward its arguments.113 Adequacy of facilities usually refers to timely and full access to the case file. The prosecution is required to disclose to the defence all evidence for or against the accused114 except when it may be necessary to withhold certain evidence from the defence to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest. Measures restricting the rights of the 110 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� See the Amnesty International Manual on Fair Trials, chapter on presumption of innocence, available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fair_Trials_Manual/151_The_presumption_of_innocence/page.do?id=110 4715&n1=3&n2=35&n3=843, 20 December 2007. 111 ���� See Sarban v. Moldova, Judgment of 4 October 2005, para. 90. 112 ���� See Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, para. 41; see also X v. Belgium, 9 DR 169. 113 ���������������� For example, in Ocalan v. Turkey, Judgment of the European Court, 12 May 2005, para. 145-148, two weeks to read a 17,000 page file, access to which was obtained only at a very late stage in the proceedings was found to have, “…so restricted the rights of the defence that the principle of a fair trial, as set out in Art. 6, was contravened.” 114 ���� See Edwards v. United Kingdom, Judgment of the European Court, 16 December 1992, para. 36. 62