Part 3 89 actually occurs.102 Access to a lawyer and the presence of a lawyer during all interviews also ensure the respect of the right to a fair trial of the terrorism suspect at a time when his or her vulnerability might be exploited to unlawfully obtain a confession or to interpret any silence as an indication of guilt.103 Moreover, suspects are entitled to talk to their lawyers in private, without interference, censorship, delays or unjustified time limits.104 Nevertheless, visual observation of contact, without recording or other intrusions, between the suspect and his or her lawyer may be permissible. The manner and duration of police supervision must, however, be subject to oversight, proportionate to the perceived need and have compelling reasons, such as the absolute necessity to prevent collusion or other crimes, as well as to protect witnesses.105 Similarly, confidentiality applies to the correspondence between a suspect and his or her lawyer. Any restriction on the privacy of the meetings and correspondence should remain exceptional and defined on a case-by-case basis. It is also crucial that legal counsel have access to appropriate information and documents in police possession or control at the earliest appropriate time.106 Case Study – Access to legal counsel of one’s choice* X is arrested in a house where he and other suspected members of a terrorist organization have held an informant captive. He is taken to the police station, where he asks to speak to a lawyer. His request is delayed on the grounds that it would interfere with the gathering of evidence. He is interviewed on multiple occasions before being allowed, two days later, to finally see his lawyer. He is then able to speak with him, but the lawyer is not allowed to stay during further interviews. 102 “Report to the Government of the Czech Republic on the visit to the Czech Republic carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 16 to 26 February 1997”, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, 15 April 1999, CPT/Inf (99)7, para 30, <http:// www.cpt.coe.int/documents/cze/1999–07-inf-eng.pdf>. 103 ECtHR, Salduz v. Turkey, Application No 36391/02, 27 November 2008, paras. 56–62, <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001–89893>. 104 OSCE Brussels Document, op. cit., note 91. 105 ECtHR, S. v. Switzerland, Applications No. 12629/87, 13965/88, 28 November 1991, <http:// hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001–57709>. 106 Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, “Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers”, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990, Principle 21, <http://www.unrol.org/files/UNBasicPrinciplesontheRoleofLawyers.pdf>.