principle of a fair trial, as set out in Article 6, was contravened. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1, taken together with Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c). --Ocalan v. Turkey, ECHR, 12 March 2003 (para. 169). ***** In the Court's opinion, to deny access to a lawyer for such a long period [48 hours] and in a situation where the rights of the defence were irretrievably prejudiced is – whatever the justification for such denial – incompatible with the rights of the accused under Article 6.... --Magee v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, 6 June 2000 (para. 44). Inter-American System In the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, number 8 -- under the heading of “Special safeguards in criminal justice matters” -- sets out the proper standards for an adequate defense in criminal cases. It reads as follows: All arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality. Such consultations may be within sight, but not within the hearing, of law enforcement officials.… Mr. Astorga Valdez’ conviction illustrates even more vividly what little chance the accused had of putting on an effective defense. In his case, the accused was convicted in the court of last instance, based on new evidence that his defense attorney had not seen and consequently could not rebut. This particular case illustrates how the work of the defense attorneys was shackled and what little opportunity they had to introduce any evidence for the defense. In effect, the accused did not have sufficient advance notification, in detail, of the charges against them; the conditions under which the defense attorneys had to operate were wholly inadequate for a proper defense, as they did not have access to the case file until the day before the ruling of first instance was delivered. The effect was that the presence and participation of the defense attorneys were mere formalities. Hence, it can hardly be argued that the victims had adequate means of defense. --Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, I/A Court H.R., Judgment of May 30, 1999 (paras. 139-141). ***** 67