12 Administration Fair Trial

Dr. Balakrishnan K.

Introduction

‘Fair trial’ is an oft-quoted phrase, the meaning and scope of which is hard to fathom. It has been used to describe prescriptions of both substantive and procedural law in a society that has its edifice on rule of law. Fair trial has been considered as a facet of “due process”. The principle of ‘due process’ is described to be an emanation from the Magna Carta doctrine that was accepted in American jurisprudence,1and which, in turn, was subjected to comparison by the Indian courts while charting the contours of Article 21 of the Constitution. The concepts of ‘due process’ and the concept of a just, fair and reasonable law have been read by the Supreme Court into the guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of our Constitution. A post Constitutional law also has to obey the injunction of Article 13, which is clear and explicit in 13(2) where it is ordained that the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.2

Due process of the law, as understood worldwide, encompasses not only the right to a fair trial, but also the preservation of public confidence in the administration of justice. Justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done.3Public confidence in the administration of justice, a sine qua non for any reasonable and acceptable system, is maintained in this way.

Universal recognition of right to fair trial

As per the International Commission of Jurists, the right to a fair trial is a long standing universally recognised human right and applies in relation to all criminal offences regardless of their heinous nature…. For this right to be realised, it is not sufficient that judicial bodies meet the required levels of independence, impartiality and competence or that the procedural

guarantees necessary for the due process of law are met, but, It is also necessary for the fundamental principles of contemporary criminal law concerning the legality of offences, the non-retroactivity of criminal law and individual or subjective criminal responsibility to be observed. Today, all of the above is considered to constitute what is known as the right to a fair trial.4

As described by the Supreme Court –“Application of these principles involves a delicate judicial balancing of competing interests in a criminal trial – the interests of the accused and the public and to a great extent that of the victim have to be weighed not losing sight of the public interest involved in the prosecution of persons who commit offences…. The principle of fair trial now informs and energizes many areas of the law. It is reflected in numerous rules and practices. It is a constant, ongoing development process continually adapted to new changing circumstances, and exigencies of the situation-peculiar at times and related to the nature of crime, persons involved- directly or operating behind, social impact and societal needs and ever so many powerful balancing factors which may come in the way of administration of criminal justice system.”5

Defining ‘fair trial’

The Supreme Court has observed that there can be no analytical, all comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted. It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with….Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm.6

This concept of fair trial may carry different connotations with reference to a country, the time in history, the place, the legal system being followed, the type of government, the religious and other norms acceptable to a society etc., so much so that any attempt to define the same may prove futile. For example, in some countries jury trial is a facet of fair trial while in others it is not. Even the concept of jury trial has not been the same if we peep into the annals of history.7

In the European context it has been described that the right to a fair trial is, in a way, an intuitive concept – each party is aware that he is entitled to a fair trial, and is subjectively convinced of his knowledge of his rights, as well as of the fact that it is always possible to ‘apply to Strasbourg’. Giving a common definition, valid throughout the signatory States of the European Convention on Human Rights, is complicated, and the interpretation becomes even more complex due to the differences between the common law and civil law systems, especially in the field of criminal law. The right to a fair trial is said to cover the entire proceedings, including the execution stage. It embodies all the basic principles of the Rule of Law in a democratic society. Consequently, it has to be recognised as a structured right, comprising several separate subjective fundamental rights. Its content shall therefore include not only all the guarantees mentioned in Article 6 of ECHR, but also those principles which are not explicitly mentioned, but can, according to the circumstances, be identified by the Court in exercising its decision-making function.8

It is this reality of differences in standards between countries within Europe that has prompted principles like the ‘Fourth Instance Doctrine’ to be formulated. A principle, formulated and explained by the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, suggesting that it is not for the European Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the municipal courts and, as a general rule, it is for these municipal courts to assess the evidence before them. The European Court’s task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair.9 Similar is the doctrine of ‘Margin of Appreciation’ formulated and applied by the European Court of Human Rights.10 It partakes the idea that each society is entitled to certain flexibility in resolving the inherent conflicts between individual rights and national interests or amongst different convictions, including moral ones.

In Europe, there are many different systems of criminal procedure and more importantly there are significant differences between adversarial and inquisitorial systems. Article 6 of the ECHR is, therefore, interpreted not according to its letter, but according to its underlying principles of fair trial. Each system has different ways of guaranteeing these. The European Court holds each national system to its own standards of guarantees. In an adversarial system the quality of the defence, the equality of arms between defence and prosecution that obtains inside and outside of the courtroom, and the adversariality and transparency of courtroom procedure are of utmost importance and a country with an adversarial system will be judged accordingly. In inquisitorial systems, the quality of pre-trial investigation by the police, public prosecutor and judge of instruction, and the preparation and handling of the case in court by prosecutor and judge, largely determines the course of events at trial. In such systems it is the exercise of power by these functionaries that comes under greater scrutiny

Today no country can be insulated from the compliance requirements of internationally accepted standards of fair trial.12 Even traditional courts, wherever they exist as part of a system, are required to respect international standards on the right to a fair trial.13

International documents on fair trial

Internationally, the major legal provisions on fair trial are to be found in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles3, 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 2 to 4 of the 7th Protocol to the Charter. Other rules to which reference could be made are the Statutes of the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Additionally, the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights14 are generally considered declarative of customary international law. It may be of great importance as a binding customary law especially if a State has not ratified or acceded to the ICCPR, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,15 or other regional human rights instrument. The most directly relevant Articles of the UDHR are 5, 9, 10 and 11. Customary international law is generally used as a supplementary source of a State’s obligations in ensuring the right to a fair trial.16

Non-binding documents relevant to the conduct of criminal proceedings and to laying down fair trial standards include the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners,17Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,18 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,19 Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers,20 Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary,21 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice,22 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, 23 Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors,24 Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions,25 Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials,26 UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty,27 etc.

4. Adversarial nature of trial

One of the persistent features prescribed in the instruments is that – it is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including those relating to procedure, should be adversarial. There should be equality of arms between the prosecution and defence. The right to an adversarial trial means that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to be aware of and confront the contentions raised and the evidence adduced by the other party. It may also require that the prosecution disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused.28The prosecutors may even be compelled to hand over evidence damaging the prosecution case since it is believed that the primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict, but to see that justice is done.29 As far as defense lawyer goes, she is bound by all fair and acceptable means to present every defense that the law of the land permits, to the result that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

5. ‘Prejudice’ as the test in determining fair trial compliance

Under the Indian legal dispensation, fair trial concepts have been discussed mostly in the context of any ‘prejudice’ that may be caused as a result of not adhering to the fair trial standards prescribed by the constitutional principles and statutory provisions.30 The basic principle on which the Code of Criminal Procedure in India is based was explained by the Supreme Court thus– the Code is a code of procedure and, like all procedural laws, is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities….The object of the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-established and well-understood line that accord with our notions of natural justice. If he does, if he is tried by a competent court, if he is told and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself, then, provided there is substantial compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere mistakes in procedure, mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal by the Code and the trial is not vitiated unless the accused can show substantial prejudice.31 In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial.32 At the same time, it is pointed out, it has to be borne in mind that it is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule of law and rule by whim and caprice. The object of the Code is to ensure for the accused a full and fair trial in accordance with the principles of natural justice. If there be substantial compliance with the requirements of law, a mere procedural irregularity would not vitiate the trial unless the same results in miscarriage of justice.33It has been held that ‘Prejudice’ is incapable of being interpreted in its generic sense and applied to criminal jurisprudence. The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial and not matters falling beyond their scope. Once the accused is able to show that there is serious prejudice to either of these aspects and that the same has defeated the rights available to him under the criminal jurisprudence, then the accused can seek benefit under the orders of the court…. Right to fair trial, presumption of innocence until pronouncement of guilt and the standards of proof i.e. the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are the basic and crucial tenets of our criminal jurisprudence. The courts are required to examine both the contents of the allegation of prejudice as well as its extent in relation to these aspects of the case of the accused. It will neither be possible nor appropriate to state such principle with exactitude, as it will always depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Therefore, the court has to ensure that the ends of justice are met, as that alone is the goal of criminal adjudication.34

We may now look at the various fair trial standards recognised across the world. As argued earlier, each of these standards may not be considered to be of universal application and the list can never be comprehensive enough.35

6.1.Equality before law of all parties

All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. Everyone must have access to courts and tribunals. The term everyone would include all conceivable parties to the administration of criminal justice. Fair trial, according to the Supreme Court, means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial. Bentham described “Witnesses” as the eyes and ears of justice, of importance and primacy of the quality of trial process. It is in this context that the Supreme Court declared that if the witness himself is incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed, and it no longer can constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to several factors…. Broader public and societal interests require that the victims of the crime who are not ordinarily parties to prosecution and the interests of the State represented by their prosecuting agencies do not suffer even in slow process but irreversibly and irretrievably, which if allowed would undermine and destroy public confidence in the administration of justice, which may ultimately pave way for anarchy, oppression and injustice resulting in complete breakdown and collapse of the edifice of rule of law, enshrined and jealously guarded and protected by the Constitution.36

6.2. Hearing by competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law

There is a right to a hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Depending on the domestic system, jury trial may also be treated as the fair mode of adjudication. The individual judicial officers must be competent to make a binding decision. The judges and the juries, wherever part of adjudicatory process, must be independent and impartial. So must be military tribunals, religious courts or courts based on customary law. A party has a right, a valuable right, of fair trial at every stage, from the initiation till the conclusion of the proceedings.37 Casting aspersions on the Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions and the tendency to scandalise the Court was considered an attempt to brow beat the Judge and cause interference in the conduct of a fair trial amounting to contempt of court.38The unnecessary interference in the criminal case by a public interest litigation may cause, sometimes, damage to the prosecution case and at times may cause serious prejudice to the accused also. This sort of interference in the criminal prosecution, it was observed by the Supreme Court, would only deny a fair trial to the accused.39

The competing claims of free speech (media rights) and fair trial in the context of contempt of court were considered by the Law Commission of India in its 200th Report.40 If total access was given, innocents may be condemned for no reason or those who are guilty may not get a fair trial or may get a higher sentence after trial than they deserved. If excessive publicity in the media about a suspect or an accused before trial prejudices a fair trial or results in characterizing him as a person who had indeed committed the crime, it amounts to undue interference with the “administration of justice”, calling for proceedings for contempt of court against the media. Certain acts like publications in the media at the pre-trial stage, can affect the rights of the accused for a fair trial. Such publications may relate to previous convictions of the accused, about his general character or about his alleged confessions to the police etc. As observed in the Report, in UK, it is the position that the right of an accused to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal is unqualified. It is not to be subordinated to the public interest to the detection and suppression of crime. In this respect, it might be said that the Convention right is superior to the common law right.41 It was conceded that ‘the belief that the public interest in a fair trial will always outweigh the public interest in freedom of expression generally goes unchallenged.’

In India, it has been held by the Supreme Court that to constitute contempt it is not necessary to show that a judge will be prejudiced by the offending publication as a matter of fact. The essence of the offence is described as ‘a conduct calculated to produce an atmosphere of prejudice in the midst of which the proceedings will have to go on and a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice or to prejudice mankind against persons who are on trial or who may be brought to trial.’ It must be used to preserve citizen’s rights to have a fair trial of their causes and proceeding in an atmosphere free of all prejudice or prepossession. It was also declared that it will be contempt if there is a publication of any news or comments which have a tendency to or are calculated to or are likely to prejudice the parties or their causes or to interfere with the due course of justice.42In the US, the Courts have already determined the televised trial and pretrial coverage is a legitimate state interest and shifts the burden of proof to the accused, which must evince a violation of his or her due process.43

6.3. Public hearing

There is a right to a public hearing. This can be avoided, if at all, only on legal grounds for exclusion of the press or public. In doing so, principles of necessity and proportionality of such exclusion should be the criteria for consideration. This right has been claimed by media to justify their right to publicize matters related to criminal justice administration. Some of the grounds for exclusion are on the interest of morals, public order, national security in a democratic society, the private lives of the parties, avoiding prejudice to the interests of justice, waiver of the right to a public hearing (not always a ground) etc. Other factors that may become obstacles to a public hearing are publicity of hearings, location of hearings, court room space or entry conditions.

6.4. Presumption of innocence

A person has a right to be presumed innocent. The burden of proof is on the State and standard of proof required is proving the case beyond all reasonable doubts. As a facet of this, it has been held that the accused is entitled to fairness and true investigation and fair trial. The prosecution is expected to play balanced role in the trial of a crime. The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law. It is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well as that of the courts to ensure that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. Equally enforceable canon of the criminal law is that the high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not to conduct an investigation in a tainted and unfair manner. The investigation should not prima facie be indicative of a biased mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law as nobody stands above law dehors his position and influence in the society….

The investigation should be conducted in a manner so as to draw a just balance between citizens’s right under Articles 19 and 21 and expansive power of the police to make investigation.44 Investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law.45Treatment of accused persons may have an impact on perceptions of his innocence. So may media coverage, statements made by public authorities, custodial remands and preventive detention.

6.5. Privilege against self incrimination

There is privilege against self-incrimination. This may extend to accused’s testimony in court, compulsion on the accused to produce, or allow collection of, material evidence, legal compulsion to answer questions, adverse inference drawn from silence, psychological coercion to answer questions, for confession of guilt or compulsion by use of torture or other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment. As described by the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal cases, the reliability of scientific evidence bears a causal link with several dimensions of the right to a fair trial such as the requisite standard of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the right of the accused to present a defence. These requirements, it was reminded, have long been recognised as components of `personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The `right against self-incrimination’ is sought to be examined in respect of its relationship with the multiple dimensions of `personal liberty’ under Article 21, which include guarantees such as the `right to fair trial’ and `substantive due process’. It was also emphasized that Articles 20 and 21 have a non-derogable status within Part III of our Constitution placing reliance on the results gathered from these techniques comes into conflict with the `right to fair trial’. It was, therefore, held that invocations of a compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights such as the `right against self incrimination’.46

6.6. Equality of arms

All international documents dealing with fair trial specify equality of arms. In a trial for determination on any criminal charge against a person, every such person shall be entitled to minimum guarantees of being informed promptly, in detail and in a language that he understands, of the nature and cause of the charge against him. While reiterating that a fair trial to the accused is a sine qua non in our criminal justice system, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that procedural law contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by introduction of hyper – technicalities. Every case must depend on its own merits and no straitjacket formula can be applied. The essential and important aspect to be kept in mind is whether omission to frame a specific charge resulted in prejudice to the accused.47Fair trial also includes procedural equality, equality in opportunity of presenting his case, the adversarial nature of proceedings, instruction concerning rights during trial, to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence and to communicate with counsel of own choosing. The right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.48

6.7. Assistance of legal counsel

In India, it has been emphasised that importance of a fair trial and a meaningful assistance of legal counsel being given to an accused person are of paramount importance to uphold the rule of law.49The right to a fair trial is one to be enjoyed by the guilty as well as the innocent and an accused is presumed to be innocent until proved to be otherwise in a trial conducted in a fair manner. This right would include that a competent counsel defends him. The provision of amicus curiae for an accused, in case the accused is unable to engage an Advocate to conduct his defence, is to ensure the goal of a fair trial, which is a guarantee provided in the Constitution.50It is not just or fair under Article 14 that a criminal case should be decided against an accused in the absence of a counsel.51

There is a right to get adequate time to prepare the accused’s case. Where a trial court had proceeded with the trial on the same day on which it appointed the amicus to represent the accused, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded the case for re-trial on the ground that the defence was not given sufficient time.52 It was also observed that the courts should adopt a sensitive approach to see that the accused felt confident that the counsel chosen for him by the court has had adequate time and material to defend him properly.53

6.8. Speedy trial

Timely hearing without undue delay is a facet of fair trial. The Supreme Court has held that fair trial implies speedy trial; while a speedy trial is an implied ingredient of fair trial; the converse is not necessarily true; a delayed trial, is not necessarily an unfair trial, if nothing is shown and there are no circumstances entitling the court to raise a presumption that the accused has been prejudiced in the conduct of his defence.54 It has been held that fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. Speedy trial is also in public or societal interest. But it does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances. This right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21, it is elaborated, encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. It is required that while determining whether undue delay has occurred one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the work-load of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so on – what is called, the systemic delays and, ultimately, the court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors – ‘balancing test’ or ‘balancing process’–and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case.55 The whole idea is to speed up the trial in criminal cases to prevent the prosecution from becoming a persecution of the person arrayed in a criminal trial.56 The courts have come down heavily on procedural delays and postponement of hearings.57In an earlier enunciation, the Supreme Court has made it clear that an accused person by his conduct cannot put a fair trial into jeopardy, for it is the primary and paramount duty of criminal courts to ensure that the risk to fair trial is removed and trials are allowed to proceed smoothly without any interruption or obstruction.58 The right to bail pending the disposal of criminal proceedings is also a mode to ensure speedy trial.

6.9. Right to be heard

There is a right to be heard. This includes the right to be present at criminal hearings. Exceptions are to be criminal trials in absentia. This right is closely related to the right to defend oneself through self-representation and the right to be informed of one’s entitlement to legal assistance, the right to be defended by a counsel of one’s choice and the right to independent, competent and effective legal representation. The Supreme Court is of the view that every person has a right to a fair trial by a competent court in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty. The object and purpose of providing competent legal aid to undefended and unrepresented accused persons are to see that the accused gets free and fair, just and reasonable trial of charge in a criminal case.59

The defendant must have a right to call and examine witnesses including expert witnesses. It would not be a fair trial if the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence. The failure to hear material witnesses is also denial of fair trial. There is a right to cross-examine witnesses. However, there could be limits on the right to call and examine witnesses in certain special circumstances. But even here, in order to safeguard the right of an accused to a fair trial and basic requirements of the due process, a mechanism was advised to be evolved whereby the court is obligated to satisfy itself about the truthfulness and reliability of the statement or disposition of the witness whose identity is sought to be protected. Keeping secret the identity of witness, though in the larger interest of public, is treated as a deviation from the usual mode of trial. In extraordinary circumstances, it is conceded that one is bound to take this path, which is less travelled. Here, it was noted, the Courts will have to exercise utmost care and caution to ensure fair trial.60

The defendant, who does not understand the proceedings, is entitled to free interpretation and translation.

6.10. Victims and witnesses

One of the facets of fair trial requires effective participation and protection of victims and witnesses. Protecting witnesses from intimidation, giving victims access to justice, assistance and fair treatment, including remedy of restitution or compensation claims, also come within the concept of fair trial.

By international standards, when a person has been convicted of a criminal offence after a due trial and subsequently his conviction is reversed or he has been granted pardon on the ground that new evidence shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction should be compensated as per the relevant law. He may not be compensated if it is proved that the fact remained unknown during trial and conviction due to non-disclosure, wholly or partly, from his part.

6.11. Principles of legality

No one shall be liable to be tried and/or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and procedure of each country. Nor should a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was prescribed at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, however, subsequent to the commission of the offence, the law makes provision for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender should be extended the benefit.

There can be no punishment without law. There cannot be retroactive declaration of offences or punishments. There must be consistency. Sentencing must be based on mitigating and aggravating circumstances because sentencing is part of the trial and mitigation is an element of fair trial.61

6.12. Prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment

There is a prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. It has been held that the guarantee against cruel and harsh punishment given in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is also part of our constitutional guarantee. Once the concept of ‘due process of law’ and the guarantee against harsh and cruel punishment (Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) are woven in our Constitutional guarantee, it is the duty of the Court to uphold the same whenever any statute even prima-facie seeks to invade the same.62

There is a right to a public and timely judgment supported with reasons. It may not be public in situations where the interest of juvenile persons requires otherwise or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and/or sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law and it must be a genuine review. All the rights in trial should also be, with incidental modification, available in appeal.

There have been international efforts to disseminate the information on fair trial rights so as to make it universally discernable and applicable.63

Summary

The concept of fair trial permeates all layers of criminal justice system and requires compliance by everyone involved in the process. The majesty of law and the rule of law is what ensure that the system commands respect and orderliness in the society is maintained.

All said and done, it must be realized that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.64

REFERENCES:-

1. Trial Observation Manual for Criminal Proceedings Practitioners Guide No. 5, International Commission of Jurists, Geneva, 2009

2. Leanza, Piero&Pridal, Ondrej,The Right To A Fair Trial: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Kluwer Law International, [2014]

3. Brants, Prof. Dr. Chrisje, Human rights: A state of mind, Policing and the criminal law in a democratic society in Police Reform and Human Rights, edited by UildriksNiels A., Antwerpen – Oxford, 2005,

4. Huang, Daphne, The Right to a Fair Trial in China, 7 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal

171

5. Whitfort, Amanda, The Right to a Fair Trial in China: The Criminal Procedure Law of 1996, 2 U. Pa. E. Asia L. Rev. 141 (2013).

6. Garthwaite, Peter,Chandler v. Florida: Media in the Courtroom Within the Purview of the 14th Amendment, 5 Grove City C. J.L. Pub Pol’y 47 2014

7. Hew, Maurice, Jr., Expanding the Civil Privilege of Being Represented by Counsel through the Presumed Prejudice Doctrine, 17 UDCDCSL L. Rev. 46 (2014)

8. Fairfax, Roger A. Jr., A Fair Trial, Not a Perfect One: The Early Twentieth-Century Campaign for the Harmless Error Rule, 93 Marq. L. Rev.433 (2009)

9. Mattar, Mohamed Y., Human Rights in Islamic Law, Specifically the Guarantee of Procedural Justice, 16 Eur. J.L. Reform 274 (2014)

10. Gray, Anthony,A Comparison and Critique of Closed Court Hearings, 18 Int’l J. Evidence & Proof 230 (2014)

11. Bowden, Phoebe; Henning, Terese; Plater, David, Balancing Fairness to Victims, Society and Defendants in the Cross-Examination of Vulnerable Witnesses: An Impossible Triangulation 37 Melb. U. L. Rev. 539 (2013-2014)

12. Menon, N. R. Madhava, Shaping of Future Judges: Tasks, Challenges and Strategies, 1 J. Nat’l L. U. Delhi 49 (2013)

13. Ho, Hock Lai,The Privilege against Self-Incrimination and Right of Access to a Lawyer; A Comparative Assessment, 25 SAcLJ 826 (2013)

14. Edmond, Gary, (Ad)Ministering Justice: Expert Evidence and the Professional Responsibilities of Prosecutors, 36 U.N.S.W.L.J. 921 (2013)

15. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007)

Web links

1.Edwardsv.United Kingdom [1992] ECHR 77 available athttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/77.html

2. http://www.achpr.org/instruments/principles-guidelines-right-fair-trial/

3. www.humanrightsfirst.orgwp-contentuploadspdffair_trial.pdf

4. www.echr.coe.intDocumentsGuide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf

5. www.americanbar.orgcontentdamabamigratedcprmrpcCanons_Ethics.authcheckdam.pdf

6. www.academicjournals.orgarticlearticle1379856371_Tiwari.pdf

7. www.osce.org/odihr

8. http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications /training9titleen.pdf

9. Roger A. Fairfax Jr., A Fair Trial, Not a Perfect One: The Early Twentieth-Century Campaign for the Harmless Error Rule, 93 Marq. L. Rev.433 (2009) http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol93/iss2/4