124 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the documents sought by the applicant might have contained certain items of sensitive information relevant to national security. In such circumstances, the Court took the view that the national judge should enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in deciding on the disclosure request by the defence.513 In any situation where non-disclosure occurs, such measures must be strictly necessary and must be weighed against the rights of the party involved.514 Proportionality is achieved by striking a balance between the ameliorating effects of the non-disclosure and the negative impact this has on the ability of the person to respond to the case against her/him.515 This means that if a less restrictive measure can achieve the legitimate aim – such as, for example, providing redacted summaries of evidence – then that measure should be applied.516 Where non-disclosure is proposed, the trial court must be involved in assessing the necessity and proportionality of the proposed non-disclosure. A procedure whereby the prosecution itself, without notifying a judge, attempts to assess the importance of concealed information to the defence and weigh this against the public interest in keeping the information secret, cannot comply, said the European Court of Human Rights in Rowe and Davis v the United Kingdom, with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the ECHR.517 6.3.7 Safeguards accompanying non-disclosure of information about the case In order to sufficiently compensate the handicaps under which the defence laboured, and hence, to ensure that overall fairness is achieved in judicial proceedings, any difficulties caused to a party in the proceedings as a result of the non-disclosure – especially in criminal cases – must be “sufficiently counterbalanced” by the judicial authorities (See also 7.1.1).518 In Jasper v the United Kingdom, for example, the European Court of Human Rights examined a procedure whereby evidence that was too sensitive to be safely revealed to the defence was examined ex parte by the trial judge. The European Court found that the fact that it was the trial judge, with full knowledge of the issues in the trial, who carried out the balancing exercise between the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the evidence and the need of the defendant to have it revealed, was sufficient to comply with Article 6(1). The European Court was, likewise, satisfied that the defence had been kept informed and been 513 Mirilashvili v Russia [2008] ECHR 1669, para 202. 514 Dowsett v the United Kingdom [2003] ECHR 314, para 42; Van Mechelen and Others v the Netherlands [1997] ECHR 22, para 58. 515 Doorson v the Netherlands [1996] ECHR 14, para 70; and Rowe and Davis v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR 91, para 61. 516 Van Mechelen and Others v the Netherlands [1997] ECHR 22, para 58; and Rowe and Davis v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR 91, para 61. 517 Rowe and Davis v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR 91, para 63. See also Dowsett v the United Kingdom [2003] ECHR 314, para 44. 518 Doorson v the Netherlands [1996] ECHR 14, para 72; Van Mechelen and Others v the Netherlands [1997] ECHR 22, para 54; Edwards v the United Kingdom [1992] ECHR 77, para 36; and Rowe and Davis v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR 91, paras 61, 64–65.