Chapter vi  Equality of Arms and Rights to a Fair Hearing 147 The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that it is not necessary for the individual concerned to prove that a refusal to grant legal aid had actually put her/him at a disadvantage, since this would deprive the right under Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR of substance.652 The Court has explained that where legal aid is concerned the right to a counsel of one’s own choosing is subject to certain limitations. When appointing defence counsel, the European Court conceded that authorities may certainly have regard to an accused’s wishes, but that these can be overridden when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary.653 In criminal proceedings, the European Court has taken the view that the right of an accused to be given, in certain circumstances, free legal assistance constitutes one aspect of the notion of a fair trial.654 In order to determine whether the “interests of justice” require that an applicant receive free legal assistance, the Court will have regard to various criteria, including: the gravity of the offence and of the possible sanction;655 the capacity of the defendant to represent her/himself;656 and the complexity of the case.657 In criminal cases, the gravity of the offence with which the accused is charged will be the main issue relevant to whether the interests of justice require the assignment of free legal assistance.658 A different, though related criterion is the capacity of the defendant to represent her/himself. In Hoang v France, for example, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that the defendant did not have the legal training essential to enable him to present and develop the appropriate arguments on complex issues involved in the drug charges he faced.659 In Pakelli v Germany, the European Court ruled that the personal appearance of the appellant would not have compensated for the absence of his lawyer. Without the services of a legal practitioner, Mr. Pakelli could not have made a useful contribution to the examination of the legal issues arising.660 Also relevant to the “gravity” of an offence is the possible sanction that might be imposed if the defendant is convicted. Where immediate deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice, in principle, call for free legal representation.661 In Quaranta v Switzerland, the European Court ruled that, considering that the maximum sentence was three years’ imprisonment, free legal assistance should have been afforded, by reason of the mere fact that so much was at stake, notwithstanding 652 Artico v Italy [1980] ECHR 4, para 35. 653 Lagerblom v Sweden [2003] ECHR 28, para 54. 654 Quaranta v Switzerland [1991] ECHR 33, para 27; Artico v Italy [1980] ECHR 4, para 32. 655 Quaranta v Switzerland [1991] ECHR 33, para 33. 656 Pakelli v Germany [1983] ECHR 6, para 37, 38; and Pham Hoang v France [1992] ECHR 61, para 40. 657 Granger v the United Kingdom [1990] ECHR 6, para 47; Quaranta v Switzerland [1991] ECHR 33, para 34. 658 Lindon v Australia, HRC Communication 646/1995, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/D/646/1995 (1998), para 6.5. 659 Pham Hoang v France [1992] ECHR 61, para 40. 660 Pakelli v Germany [1983] ECHR 6, paras 37, 38. 661 Benham v the United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 22, para 59.