interception or censorship, and in full confidentiality, from the outset and during the whole 319 detention. All individuals detained should also have access to effective legal aid without 320 payment if they do not have sufficient means to pay. Effective legal representation is a key safeguard to the right to fair trial, as well as against human rights abuses, in particular in pre-trial detention, and has a strong deterrent effect on the use of torture and 321 other forms of ill-treatment. Additional standards foresee the right of children to benefit 322 from age-appropriate legal aid and the right of foreigners to consular assistance and 323 interpretation services, if needed. Confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship includes that meetings should be out of hearing of prison staff (though they may be within sight), phone calls should not be monitored, correspondence should not be opened or censored, and detainees should be allowed to have access to and keep with them materials related to their legal 324 proceedings. Any restrictions of the right to consult, meet and communicate with a lawyer in full confidentiality should remain exceptional, be ordered by a judicial authority 325 and be decided on a case-by-case basis. Whenever, in exceptional cases, access to a specific lawyer is denied on the grounds that they are allegedly being used as a means of transmitting instructions linked to terrorist or other criminal activities, access to another 326 independent lawyer must be guaranteed. Even the suspicion on the part of detainees held in dedicated units for (suspected) violent extremist prisoners that they are subject to surveillance and the mere risk of prison staff 327 hearing communications between detainees and their lawyers is of concern. This inhibits the maintenance of a lawyer-client relationship and may result in detainees censoring themselves, at the expense of their defence. In some cases, those held in separate dedicated units or in high-security settings have had to meet their lawyers through a 328 glass partition. This situation inevitably leads to the involvement of prison staff in the exchange of documents and may result in these officers over-hearing conversations or glancing at documents, contrary to the principle of confidentiality. 319 UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rule 61. 320 Ibid., Rules 61 and 119 (2). 321 ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, Chapter 5, para. 96; APT, Yes, Torture Prevention Works, op. cit., note 304, p. 17. 322 UN CRC, op. cit., note 14, Article 37; UN Havana Rules, op. cit., note 86, Rule 18; UN Beijing Rules, op. cit., note 126, Rule 15. 323 UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rules 61.2, 62. 324 Ibid., Rules 52 and 61 and 120. 325 For further information on confidentiality of lawyer-client communication and violations of Article 8 ECHR, see ECtHR, “Factsheet - Legal professional privilege”, November 2019; regarding data collection through surveillance, see ECtHR, “Factsheet – Personal Data Protection”, March 2021, specifically R.E. v. the United Kingdom (no. 62498/11). 326 “Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey Carried Out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 28 to 29 April 2016”, CPT/Inf (2018) 11, para. 15; Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey Carried Out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 6 to 17 May 2019, CPT/Inf (2020) 24, para. 50. 327 Amnesty International and Open Society Justice Initiative, “Inhuman and Unnecessary Human Rights Violations in Dutch High-Security Prisons in the Context of Counter Terrorism”, op. cit., note 106, p. 50. 328 See, for example: “2016 Annual Report of the Office of the Ombudsman as National Preventive Mechanism”, Bulgaria, 2016, p. 33; ibid., p. 50. 68