134 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights compelled to do so (See also 5.2). The European Court of Human Rights has recognized that, although the right to be tried in one’s presence is not expressly mentioned in Article 6(1), the object and purpose of the article, taken as a whole, demonstrates that a person “charged with a criminal offence” is entitled to take part in the hearing. Moreover, sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Article 6(3) guarantee to “everyone charged with a criminal offence” the right “to defend himself in person” (See also 6.6.1), “to examine or have examined witnesses” (See also 6.7) and “to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court” (See also 6.8). The European Court of Human Rights has concluded that it is difficult to see how an accused could exercise these rights without being present.578 In Orejuela v Colombia, the applicant complained that the proceedings against him were conducted only in writing, excluding any hearing, oral or public. Colombia did not refute these allegations but merely indicated that the decisions were made public. The Human Rights Committee observed that, in order to guarantee the rights of the defence enshrined in Article 14(3) of the ICCPR (in particular, those contained in subparagraphs (d) and (e), the right to defend oneself (See also 6.6) and the right to call and examine witnesses (See also 6.7)), all criminal proceedings must provide the person charged with the right to an oral hearing, at which s/he may appear in person or be represented by counsel and may bring evidence and examine witnesses. Concluding that the applicant did not have such a hearing during the proceedings that culminated in his conviction and sentencing, the Committee found that there was a violation of the right to a fair trial.579 It should be noted that there is no a priori assumption in favour of an oral hearing in review or appeal procedures (See also 10.3),580 although the principle of equality of arms (See also 6.1) would demand that, if the prosecution is entitled to be present during such procedures, the defendant should enjoy the same benefit.581 Both the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee have stated that the right to be present in person may also be required in appeal proceedings if the appeal involves questions of both fact and law, rather than questions of law alone.582 In Kremzow v Austria, appeal proceedings were meant to examine whether the applicant’s sentence should have been increased from 20 years to life imprisonment and whether the sentence should have been served in a normal prison instead of a special mental institution. Because these proceedings were of crucial importance to the applicant and involved not only an assessment of his character and state of mind but also his motive, the European Court concluded that it was essential to the 578 Colozza v Italy [1985] ECHR 1, para 27. 579 Orejuela v Colombia, HRC Communication 848/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/75/D/848/1999 (2002), para 7.3; and Guerra de la Espriella v Colombia, HRC Communication 1623/2007, UN Doc CCPR/C/98/D/1623/2007 (2010), para 9.3. 580 Hermi v Italy [2006] ECHR 875, para 61. 581 Dudko v Australia, HRC Communication 1347/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1347/2005 (2007), paras 7.3–7.4. 582 Kremzow v Austria [1993] ECHR 40, para 58; Sutter v Switzerland [1984] ECHR 2, para 30; Hermi v Italy [2006] ECHR 875, para 64; and Karttunen v Finland, HRC Communication 387/1989, UN Doc CCPR/ C/46/D/387/1989 (1992), para 7.3.