387. In criminal proceedings before military tribunals, violations of the principle of equality of arms may, for example, occur “when the prosecution fails to disclose to the defence all material evidence in its possession for or against the defendant on account of the classified character of such information”.960 Non-disclosure of information may affect the overall fairness of any trial.961 It should therefore remain limited to situations where it is strictly necessary and proportionate, and where it is accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure that a fair hearing is guaranteed.962 Additionally, the appropriateness of non-disclosure should be determined by a judge and reviewed throughout the proceedings “in light of the significance of the information, the adequacy of the safeguards and the impact on the fairness of the proceedings as a whole”.963 In this regard, the Human Rights Committee has held that the use of summaries of information redacted for security concerns did not render proceedings unfair where steps had been taken to ensure that the defendant was aware of and able to respond to the case made against him, to present his own case and to crossexamine witnesses.964 Ultimately, it is crucial to make sure that accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of evidence that they or their attorney did not have full access to.965 388. Persons charged with a criminal offence also have a right to “examine, or have examined, the witnesses against [them] and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on [their] behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against [them]”.966 Thus, the defence is to have the “same legal powers of compelling the attendance of witnesses and of examining or cross-examining any witnesses as are available to the prosecution”.967 However, this right is limited to the attendance of witnesses who are relevant for the defence and to the proper cross-examination of witnesses at “some stage of the proceedings”.968 Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee has held that the right to a fair trial may not be violated if “all possible steps are taken, unsuccessfully, to secure the presence of a witness in court, though this may depend on the nature of the evidence”.969 Accordingly, where “repeated efforts” are made to secure the attendance of a witness deemed to be crucial, Article 14(3) is not automatically violated.970 It should be noted that international bodies have raised concerns about the admissibility of hearsay evidence in court,971 because it undermines defendants’ ability to cross-examine witnesses against them.972 960 UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Report to the General Assembly, A/68/285, op. cit., note 647, para. 80. 961 Ibid., para. 81. 962 Ibid., paras. 80-81. 963 Ibid., para. 81. 964 UN HRC, Mansour Ahani v. Canada, Communication No. 1051/2002, 29 March 2004, para. 10.5, <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f80%2fD%2f1051%2f2002>. 965 UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Report to the General Assembly, A/64/181, op. cit., note 954, para. 41; UN HRC, Concluding Observations, Canada, CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, 20 April 2006, para. 13, <http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/413/62/PDF/G0641362.pdf?OpenElement>. 966 ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(e). 967 UN HRC, General Comment No. 32, op. cit., note 648, para. 39. 968 Ibid. 969 UN HRC, Clifford McLawrence v. Jamaica, Communication No. 702/1996, 18 July 1997, para. 5.8, <http://juris.ohchr.org/Search/Details/861>. 970 Ibid. 971 Hearsay evidence is understood as a statement, other than one made by the witness while testifying at trial, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See, for example, Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States, Prosecution initiatives 170