Chapter vi  Equality of Arms and Rights to a Fair Hearing 117 against her/him, with a view to preparing an adequate defence.468 In Mattoccia v Italy, where the accused was alleged to have raped a mentally disabled child, the European Court of Human Rights considered the information contained in the accusation as characterized by vagueness as to essential details concerning time and place, which impaired his opportunities to defend himself in a practical and effective manner.469 It is important that the information is provided in a language which the accused understands. In Brozicek v Italy, the European Court of Human Rights considered the situation of a German defendant who did not reside in Italy but who faced criminal charges there. The defendant received a letter notifying him of the charges brought against him, following which he informed the relevant authorities that, because of his lack of knowledge of Italian, he had difficulty in understanding the communication. The European Court held that, on receipt of the defendant’s request for a translation of the communication either in his mother tongue or in one of the official languages of the United Nations, the Italian judicial authorities should have taken steps to comply with the request, so as to ensure compliance with Article 6(3)(a) of the ECHR.470 In the case of Kamasinski v Austria, the European Court clarified that the right to be informed of a criminal charge in a language understood by the accused does not imply that the relevant information should be given in writing or translated in written form for a foreign defendant (See also 6.8.3).471 The Human Rights Committee has stated, in the context of trials in absentia (See also 6.5.3), that Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR requires that, notwithstanding the absence of the accused, all due steps are taken to inform the accused of the charge and to notify her/him of the proceedings.472 6.3.2 The right to be convicted only of the accusation against a defendant Also specific to criminal proceedings is the right, implied from Article 14(3)(a) and (b) of the ICCPR and Article 6(3)(a) and (b) of the ECHR, to be convicted only of the accusation against a defendant, i.e., the accusation that formed the basis of the notification to the defendant of what s/he is alleged to have done. In Pélissier and Sassi v France, for example, the accused were charged with criminal bankruptcy but were instead convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal bankruptcy. Because the elements of the two offences differed, the European Court of Human Rights held this to amount to a violation of Article 6(3)(a) and (b) of the ECHR.473 Where a trial court has the right to recharacterize proved facts as amounting to an offence with different legal elements than those in the indictment (or equivalent notice), the accused must be duly and fully informed thereof and must be provided with ade- 468 Mattoccia v Italy [2000] ECHR 383, para 60. 469 Mattoccia v Italy [2000] ECHR 383, para 71. 470 Brozicek v Italy [1989] ECHR 23, para 41. 471 Kamasinski v Austria [1989] ECHR 24, paras 79, 81. 472 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 31; Mbenge v Zaire, HRC Communication 16/1977, UN Doc CCPR/C/18/D/16/1977 (1983), para 14.1. 473 Pélissier and Sassi v France [1999] ECHR 17, paras 62–63. See, similarly, Chichlian and Ekindjian v France [1989] ECHR 22, para 14.