Chapter vi  Equality of Arms and Rights to a Fair Hearing 123 allow an assessment of such a claim (See also 5.2.6).507 In Yassen and Thomas v Guyana, the applicant Thomas had been tried and, in the process, appeared at a preliminary hearing. At that preliminary inquiry, the police produced a written statement, alleged to be a confession made by Mr. Thomas and recorded in a pocket book. This pocket book, along with the Police station diary for the relevant days, disappeared between the time of the preliminary hearing of Thomas and the trial of Thomas and Yassen together. The station diary was kept in a storeroom under lock and key. The authors complained that these documents may have contained exculpatory evidence and that their disappearance therefore prejudiced the preparation of the defence case. The Human Rights Committee concluded that the failure to produce police documents at the trial that had been produced at the preliminary hearing and which may have contained evidence in favour of the authors constituted a violation of Article 14(3)(b), since it may have impeded the authors in the preparation of their defence.508 The right to disclosure of information, as a fundamental aspect of the principle of equality of arms (See also 6.1), also applies to civil proceedings, not just as between the parties in the proceedings but also as between the court and the parties. Krcmar and Others v the Czech Republic, for example, concerned proceedings before the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic about the nationalization and possible restitution of the applicants’ property. On its own initiative, the Constitutional Court gathered evidence additional to that presented by the parties. Although this evidence formed a basis for the Court’s subsequent decision, the information was not communicated to the applicants. The European Court of Human Rights considered that, by itself, the gathering of evidence by a court is not incompatible with the requirements of a fair hearing. The Court concluded, however, that: “the concept of a fair hearing also implies the right to adversarial proceedings (See also 6.1.2), according to which the parties must have the opportunity not only to make known any evidence needed for their claims to succeed, but also to have knowledge of, and comment on, all evidence adduced or observations filed, with a view to influencing the court’s decision”.509 6.3.6 Grounds for non-disclosure of information about the case The right to disclosure of information about the case is not an absolute right. Non-disclosure of information may be justified if this is required to pursue a legitimate aim, such as protecting national security;510 preserving the fundamental rights of another individual, such as the protection of witnesses at risk of reprisals (See also 7.1);511 or safeguarding an important public interest, such as allowing police to keep secret their methods of investigating crimes.512 In Mirilashvili v Russia, the European Court of Human Rights recognized 507 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 33. 508 Yassen and Thomas v Guyana, HRC Communication 676/1996, UN Doc CCPR/C/62/D/676/1996 (1998), para 7.10. 509 Krcmar and Others v the Czech Republic [2000] ECHR 99, para 40. See also Nideröst-Huber v Switzerland [1997] ECHR 3, para 24. 510 Mirilashvili v Russia [2008] ECHR 1669, para 202; Dowsett v the United Kingdom [2003] ECHR 314, para 42. 511 Doorson v the Netherlands [1996] ECHR 14, para 70; Kovač v Croatia [2007] ECHR 597, para 27 512 Rowe and Davis v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR 91, para 61; Lüdi v Switzerland [1992] ECHR 50, para 49; Van Mechelen and Others v the Netherlands [1997] ECHR 22, para 57.