Chapter vi  Equality of Arms and Rights to a Fair Hearing 125 permitted to make submissions and participate in the decision-making process (as far as was possible without disclosing to them the material which the prosecution sought to keep secret on public interest grounds).519 To amount to a “sufficient counterbalance”, the procedures adopted by the judicial authorities in non-disclosure cases must ultimately ensure that the defendant, or the respondent in civil proceedings, is able to answer the case against her/him. In Edwards and Lewis v the United Kingdom, the undisclosed evidence related, or may have related, to an issue of fact decided by the trial judge. Each applicant complained that he had been entrapped into committing the offence with which he was charged by one or more undercover police officers or informers. This was critical to the defence case because, had this complaint been accepted by the judge, the prosecution would, in effect, have had to be discontinued. In order to conclude whether or not the accused had, indeed, been the victim of improper incitement by the police, it was necessary for the trial judge to examine a number of factors, including the reason for the police operation, the nature and extent of police participation in the crime and the nature of any inducement or pressure applied by the police.520 The defendants were denied access to the evidence and their lawyers were, therefore, precluded from fully arguing the case on entrapment. The defendants were also not informed of the nature of the non-disclosed material. In concluding that this amounted to a violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights found that the procedure employed to determine the issues of disclosure of evidence and entrapment did not comply with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings (See also 6.1.2) and equality of arms (See also 6.1).521 The question of summaries of information redacted for security concerns was considered by the Human Rights Committee in Ahani v Canada, which involved a hearing concerning the reasonableness of a security certificate issued against the author. The Human Rights Committee noted that the court had taken steps to ensure that the applicant was aware of, and able to respond to, the case made against him and that he was also able to, and did, present his own case and cross-examine witnesses. In the circumstances of national security involved and the safeguards introduced by way of providing the person with a redacted summary of the information, the Committee was persuaded that this process was fair to the applicant and, thus, found no violation of Article 14 of the ICCPR.522 519 Jasper v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR 90, paras 55–56. 520 Edwards and Lewis v the United Kingdom [2003] ECHR 381, para 30. 521 Edwards and Lewis v the United Kingdom [2003] ECHR 381, para 59. 522 Ahani v Canada, HRC Communication 1051/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/80/D/1051/2002 (2004), para 10.4. Contrast with the Committee’s later Concluding Observations: Canada, UN Doc CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5 (2006), para 13. Also on the question of the use of redacted summaries of information, but in the context of article 5(4) of the ECHR instead of article 6(1), see A. and Others v the United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301, especially paras 205–206, 220.