Chapter vi  Equality of Arms and Rights to a Fair Hearing 135 fairness of the proceedings that he be present during the hearing of the appeals and afforded the opportunity to participate in it together with his counsel.583 6.5.3 Criminal trials in absentia Conducting trials in the absence of the defendant is, in principle, at odds with the general requirements of due process and more specifically with the right to participate in one’s own defence (See also 6.6).584 However, the Human Rights Committee has stated that Article 14 of the ICCPR cannot be construed as invariably rendering proceedings in absentia inadmissible, irrespective of the reasons for the accused’s absence.585 The Committee has explained that, when, exceptionally, trials are held in absentia, strict observance of the rights of the defence is all the more necessary.586 The Committee has commented that criminal proceedings in absentia, in some circumstances, might be permissible in the interest of the proper administration of justice. The Committee gives only one example of where this might be permitted, i.e., when a defendant declines to exercise her/his right to be present at the hearing, despite having been informed of the proceedings sufficiently in advance.587 Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has taken the view that proceedings that take place in absence of the accused are not in themselves incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR,588 provided the accused has unequivocally waived her/his right to appear and to defend her/ himself,589 unless it is established that the accused was seeking to evade justice.590 In this context, Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR (See also 6.3.1) 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. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights requires that, for a hearing in absentia to be fair, the State should demonstrate that it gave effective notice to the accused.591 In the absence of such notification, “the accused, in particular, is not given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (art. 14 (3) (b)), cannot defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing (art. 14 (3) (d)) nor does he have the opportunity to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf (art. 14 (3) (e))”.592 Council of Europe Resolution (75) 11, sets out a number of criteria governing criminal proceedings held in absentia, including that: 583 Kremzow v Austria [1993] ECHR 40, para 67. 584 See Colozza v Italy [1985] ECHR 1, para 27. 585 Mbenge v Zaire, HRC Communication 16/1977, UN Doc CCPR/C/18/D/16/1977 (1983), para 14.1. 586 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 13 (1984), para 11. 587 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 36. 588 Sejdovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 181, para 82. 589 Sejdovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 181, para 58. 590 Sejdovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 181, para 105. 591 See also Colozza v Italy [1985] ECHR 1, para 28; Sejdovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 181, para 58. 592 Mbenge v Zaire, HRC Communication 16/1977, UN Doc CCPR/C/18/D/16/1977 (1983), para 14.1; and Benhadj v Algeria, HRC Communication 1173/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1173/2003 (2007), para 8.9.