‘the notification of the accusation required by Article 6(3)(a) should not necessarily be attended by the disclosure of supporting evidence to enable the accused to prepare for trial (…) The existence of such evidence may still be dependent on the results of an ongoing investigation.’46 It has recognised some limits to this, however, under Article 5(4) ECHR. In a well-established line of case-law, it has repeatedly stated that the judicial review of pre-trial detention must be such as to ensure equality of arms, which requires that access be provided to some evidence: ‘The Court acknowledges the need for criminal investigations to be conducted efficiently, which may imply that part of the information collected during them is to be kept secret in order to prevent suspects from tampering with evidence and undermining the course of justice. However, this legitimate goal cannot be pursued at the expense of substantial restrictions of the rights of the defence. Therefore, information which is essential for the assessment of the lawfulness of a person's detention should be made available in an appropriate manner to the suspect's lawyer’.47 What has never been made clear by the ECtHR is the point at which this should happen. Article 5(4) relates to the judicial review of detention and so cannot regulate what happens prior to that point. Whilst Article 5(2) ECHR requires a person to be provided with reasons for their arrest, this has not been interpreted as implying a right of access to the relevant underlying materials. Lawyers in some jurisdictions (notably France, Belgium and Luxembourg) have argued that the rights protected by Article 6(3) ECHR entitle the suspect / their lawyer to access the police file prior to initial questioning. There is not particularly clear support for this in the case-law. One statement frequently referred to is that relating to the role of the lawyer at the police station. Following its landmark ruling in Salduz v. Turkey, establishing the right of access to a lawyer as from the first questioning by police, the ECtHR discussed the role of the lawyer in that context: ‘Indeed, the fairness of proceedings requires that an accused be able to obtain the whole range of services specifically associated with legal assistance. In this regard, counsel has to be able to secure without restriction the fundamental aspects of that person’s defence: discussion of the case, organisation of the defence, collection of evidence favourable to the accused, preparation for questioning, support of an accused in distress and checking of the conditions of detention’.48 Lawyers have seen in this a vague suggestion that in order to perform this role effectively, the lawyer needs access to the case file. It is not possible to discharge the broad role of the lawyer without access to the case file. One judgment supports this. Finding a violation of the right of access to a lawyer at the pre-trial stage, the ECtHR has stated: 46 Haxhia v. Albania, cited above note 36, paragraph. 131. Case of Chruściński v. Poland, App. no. 22755/04 (Judgment of 6 November 2007), paragraph 56. 48 Case of Dayanan v. Turkey, Application no. 7377/03 (Judgment of 13 October 2009), paragraph 32. 47 33