118 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights quate time (See also 6.3.4) and facilities to react to them and organize her/his defence on the basis of any new information or allegation. 474 It was insufficient, said the European Court in Pélissier and Sassi, that the accused only learned of the new charge of conspiracy to commit bankruptcy after reading the judgment of the court.475 In Sadak and Others v Turkey, the applicants were initially accused of treason against the integrity of the State and were later convicted for belonging to an armed organization set up for the purpose of destroying the integrity of the State. The European Court found that, in using the right to recharacterize facts, the national court should have afforded the applicants the possibility of exercising their defence rights in a practical and effective manner, particularly by giving them the necessary time to do so.476 Following a less favourable approach to the accused, the Human Rights Committee has taken the view that it might be possible for a person to be convicted of a more serious offence than the one s/he was accused of if the conviction was based on the facts described in the indictment.477 The right to be convicted only of the accusation against a defendant does not affect the proof of facts that are implicit in the indictment (or equivalent notice) and which might impact upon sentencing (See also 8.3.2). In De Salvador Torres v Spain, for example, the defendant, who was a public official and head of a public hospital, was accused and convicted of embezzlement. The public nature of his position was not specified in the accusation against him, but attention to this fact was brought during the trial and this ultimately influenced the sentence imposed on him. The European Court of Human Rights held that this did not amount to a violation of Article 6(3)(a) of the ECHR because the public nature of the defendant’s position was an intrinsic element of the accusation, such that he must have been aware that this could constitute an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of determining the sentence.478 6.3.3 The right to counsel during the preparation of one’s defence A person suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence has the right to avail her/himself of the services of legal counsel at all stages of the criminal proceedings (See also 6.6.3). In the context of the preparation of one’s defence, the right to communicate with counsel is fundamental to determining whether or not an accused’s preparation has been adequate (See also 6.6.6). The ICCPR and the ECHR take different linguistic approaches to the right to a lawyer in criminal proceedings, although the practical applications by the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights are almost identical. Under the ICCPR, the right to a lawyer in criminal proceedings is mentioned in two contexts: first, under Article 14(3)(b), as a right to communicate with counsel of one’s choosing for the preparation of one’s defence; and then, under Article 14(3)(d), as a right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance of one’s choosing. The effect is that a person charged with an offence should have the right to a lawyer both for the preparation of her/ 474 Mattoccia v Italy [2000] ECHR 383, para 61. 475 Pélissier and Sassi v France [1999] ECHR 17, para 62. 476 Sadak and Others v Turkey [2001] ECHR 479, para 57. 477 Marques de Morais v Angola, HRC Communication 1128/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002 (2005), para 5.5. 478 De Salvador Torres v Spain [1996] ECHR 47, para 33.