Right to Counsel

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Globe3.png English  • español

Contents

Background

One of the fundamental rights in the legal system is the right to counsel. This right generally provides that anyone who is accused of a crime has the right to receive legal aid from an attorney. The right to counsel may be found in various international, regional, as well as domestic legal authorities.

International Sources

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

  • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted by the United Nations in 1966. The rights enshrined in the treaty are basic human rights that form a foundation for freedom, justice, and peace in the world.[1] The rights in the ICCPR are “designed primarily to protect individuals against arbitrary government action and to ensure individuals the opportunity to participate in government and other common activities.”[2] Included in the ICCPR is the right to legal counsel: article 14(3).

Article 14, Section 3 -

  • Under Article 14, section 3, the ICCPR guarantees the following rights to the accused in a criminal trial:
    • To be promptly informed of the charge against him in a language that he understands;
    • To communicate with a lawyer of his own choosing and have enough time to prepare for his defence;
    • To be tried promptly;
    • To defend himself in court or have a lawyer defend him in court; to be informed of his right to legal counsel if he does not know of that right; and to have a lawyer assigned to his case if the accused cannot otherwise afford a lawyer;
    • To question opposing witnesses and to call witnesses for his side of the case;
    • To have the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;
    • To refrain from making any self-incriminating statements.[3]

Regional Instruments

European Convention on Human Rights

Article 6 (3) (c) -

  • Anyone who has been accused of a crime has the right to defend himself, or to obtain a lawyer of his own choosing to defend the him in court. If the accused does not have enough money to pay for legal assistance, the State should provide this service in the interests of justice.[4]

American Convention on Human Rights

Article 8 (2) (d) -

  • Every person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. During the trial, the accused has the right to either defend himself or have a lawyer of his own choosing defend him in court. If the accused chooses to have a lawyer, he has the right to communicate freely and privately with his lawyer.[5]

Examples of Right to Counsel

Australia

  • Australia does not have a common law right to publicly provided legal representation.
  • Dietrich v. The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
    • (5:2) where an accused charged with a serious offence is (through no fault of their own) unable to obtain legal representation, any application for an adjournment or stay should be granted (unless there are exceptional circumstances) and the trial delayed until legal representation is available (per Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron & McHugh JJ).
    • (5:2) if in such circumstances an application for an adjournment or stay is refused, and as a result the trial is an unfair one, the conviction must be overturned (per Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron & McHugh JJ).
  • Essentially Dietrich said, even though there is no right to counsel, in most circumstances the judge should stay the proceedings or grant an adjournment when the defendant does not have representation.

Cambodia

  • Cambodia is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and it incorporated the right to counsel in Article 38 of its Constitution, which states that “every citizen shall enjoy the right to defense through judicial recourse.” [6]
  • The right to counsel in Cambodia may also be found in Article 98 of the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that a detainee may speak to a lawyer for 30 minutes only after having been detained for 24 hours. Article 143 of the Code also remarks that “when a charged person appears for the first time, the investigating judge should inform him of his right to choose a lawyer or to have a lawyer appointed according to the Law on the Bar.” Article 145 of the Code permits the defense counsel to “review, study, and prepare a legal defense based on the facts prior to an investigation by the Investigating Judge.” [7] However, it should be noted that there is no provision in the Code that permits the accused to have a right to counsel during police interrogations.
  • Furthermore, the court only has the obligation to assign counsel to juvenile and felony cases. [8] However, it often does not even have adequate funds to pay for the services of an attorney. Therefore, much of the legal aid that indigents receive is from nongovernmental organizations or bar associations rather than the government itself. For example, Article 29 of the Bar Association of Cambodia states: “The bar fund is derived from dues paid by all members and other contributions. A special account shall be established in this fund for providing income to lawyers who defend poor people.” [9]

Canada

  • One of the main rights instruments in Canada is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the Canadian Constitution. [10] Though the Charter does not explicitly provide that the accused has a right to counsel, section 10(b) states that “everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.” [11]
  • The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that section 10(b) stood for a right to counsel in the landmark 1990 case of Brydges. In that case, the court noted that “the right to retain and instruct counsel, in modern Canadian society, has come to mean more than the right to retain a lawyer privately. It now also means the right to have access to counsel free of charge where the accused meets certain financial criteria set up by the provincial legal aid plan, and the right to have access to immediate, although temporary, advice from duty counsel irrespective of financial status.” [12] Therefore, anyone detained by the police has a right to be informed about the availability of legal aid, regardless of financial background. [13]
  • The Court also noted that “one of the important reasons for retaining legal advice without delay upon being detained is linked to the protection of the right against self-incrimination. This is precisely the reason that there is a duty on the police to cease question the detainee until he has had a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel.” [14] In Canada, a trial court has the power to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the accused’s right to counsel. [15]
  • In the 2009 case of R v. Grant, the Canadian Supreme Court further clarified that the right to counsel arises “immediately upon detention, even if that detention is investigative.” [16] The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that this right does not arise in every interaction between an individual and the police. [17] It only applies to situations that involve significant physical or psychological restraint of an individual’s liberty. [18]

China

  • Article 125 of the Chinese Constitution states that “the accused has a right to defense” in a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, Article 11 of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) states that a “defendant shall have the right to defense, and the People's Courts shall have the duty to guarantee his defense.” [19] Article 33 of the CPL enshrines the right to pre-trial access to counsel.
  • Chinese law, however, only requires the appointment of counsel to “criminal suspects who are juveniles, deaf, mute, or blind or those who are charged with death penalty offenses.” [20] In all other cases, a court may, but is not required to, appoint counsel for the accused, even if the accused is too poor to afford counsel on his own behalf.
  • This concept is outlined in Article 34 of the CPL: “If a case is to be brought in court by a public prosecutor and the defendant involved has not entrusted anyone to be his defender due to financial difficulties or other reasons, the People's Court may designate a lawyer that is obligated to provide legal aid to serve as a defender. If the defendant is blind, deaf or mute, or if he is a minor, and thus has not entrusted anyone to be his defender, the People's Court shall designate a lawyer that is obligated to provide legal aid to serve as a defender. If there is the possibility that the defendant may be sentenced to death and yet he has not entrusted anyone to be his defender, the People's Court shall designate a lawyer that is obligated to provide legal aid to serve as a defender.”
  • In 1996, China established the National Legal Aid Center at the Ministry of Justice to promote the development of legal aid organizations throughout the country. [21] The Chinese government has the burden of providing legal aid lawyers, but is often aided by nongovernmental organizations and universities.
  • In China, indigent defendants must rely on legal aid centers or private lawyers who volunteer their services. Though there has been progress made by this recognition of the need for legal aid, many indigent defendants still do not have access to an attorney. Legal aid centers often do not have enough lawyers to handle all the numerous cases that need help. Furthermore, even though China now allows counsel to have pre-trial access to defendants, Chinese law requires that the defendants ask for the legal aid. [22] Unfortunately, due to poor knowledge about their procedural rights, many defendants do not ask for this aid.

India

  • Article 22 of the Indian Constitution outlines the right to counsel. The article reads, “no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.” [23]
  • The Law Commission of India, an executive body established by the Indian government, highlighted this principle in its 48th report, while discussing safeguards against overuse of state power in criminal proceedings. The Commission stated that “the accused must be informed of his right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice, and the accused must also be given an opportunity to consult such a legal practitioner before making the confession.” [24]
  • The report further remarked that the Commission is “of the view that defence of the indigent accused by a pleader assigned by the State should be made available to every person accused of an offense (i.e. in all criminal trials) so that mere poverty may not stand in the way of adequate defence in a proceeding which may result in the deprivation of liberty or property or loss of reputation.” [25] The Commission thus recognized the right to counsel as a “basic ingredient” of a criminal trial, and commented that the law should “go as far as possible” in assuring that this ingredient is not absent. [26]
  • This principle has also been affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court in the 1974 case of R.M. Wasawa. In R.M. Wasawa, the Court proclaimed that “[i]ndigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice. Particular attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates, equal to handling complex cases, not patronising gestures to raw entrants at the Bar. Sufficient time and complete papers should also be made available so that the advocate chosen may serve the cause of justice.” [27]
  • The Supreme Court proclaimed that a Judge has a duty to inform an indigent accused that he has the right to counsel. [28] In Ranjan Dwivedi v. Union of India, the Court also stated that there is “no doubt” that the accused is entitled to financial assistance to engage a counsel of the accused’s choice. [29] It also remarked that the government should implement legislation that has appropriate schemes for free legal aid.


Japan

  • The Japanese Constitution guarantees the right to counsel in Articles 34 and 37. [30] Article 34 guarantees the right to counsel for a defendant under arrest or in detention, while Article 37 addresses the right to counsel regardless of the defendant’s financial background. Article 36 of the Code of criminal Procedure reinforces this statement saying that “where the accused is unable to select a defense counsel for poverty or some other reason, the court shall assign a defense counsel on behalf of the accused upon his request. However, this shall not apply where defense counsel has been selected for him by some person other than the accused.” While it seems that defendants enjoy quite extensively the right to counsel, the reality is different. This is because in general Japanese courts have interpreted the right to counsel very narrowly. Courts have held that “the right to court appointed counsel does not attach until after indictment.” [31]
  • Moreover, Article 34 of the Japanese Constitution must be read in conjunction with Article 39 of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Article 34, the right to counsel only attaches during formal arrest. The concept of “formal arrest” is contrasted with “voluntary police custody,” in which police may question suspects without formally placing them under arrest, thus de facto impeding them to have a counsel who assist them. [32]


Kenya

In view of the ever present danger of adverse consequences in cases where a defendant is unrepresented, Article 50(2) of the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel. The right to counsel includes: the right of an accused to be represented by an advocate of his choice; the right of the accused to be informed promptly of his right to counsel; the right to have counsel assigned by the State at the State’s expense. Prohibitive costs of using the system and lack of affordable legal representation are to of the main impediments to accessing justice. Article 48 of the Constitution provides that where payments of fees is required, the fees shall be reasonable so as access to justice is not impeded.

Even though, Article 48 of the Constitution obliges the State to ensure access to justice for all persons, under Article 50(2)(h), the right to counsel at the expense of the State is only available if substantial injustice would otherwise occur. A determination on what would constitute substantial injustice will be decided by courts.

An arrestee’s pretrial right to counsel is to be informed promptly of his right to counsel, and be afforded the opportunity to communicate with an advocate or other persons whose assistance is necessary (Article 49 (c).

Constitution

  • 77(2) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence (d) shall be pertained to defend himself before the court in person or by a legal representative of his own choice
  • 77 (14) Nothing contained in subsection (2)(d) shall be construed as entitling a person to legal representation at public expense.

Criminal Procedure Code (2009)

  • 137F (1) Before the court records a plea agreement, the accused person shall be placed under oath and the court shall address the accused person personally in court, and shall inform the accused person of, and determine that the accused person understands - (a) the right to - (vi) be represented by a legal representative of his own choice, and where necessary, have the court appoint

Parliament shall enact legislation that (a) provides for the humane treatment of persons detained, held in custody or imprisoned; and (b) takes into account the relevant international human rights Instruments

Rwanda

  • Any person detained by the judicial police shall have the right to consult with his or her legal counsel. In case he or she fails to seek one, he or she shall inform the chairperson of the bar association for assigning a counsel to him or her, but he or she has the right to accept or refuse that counsel. (Article 39 Rwandan CPC)
  • a public prosecutor informs the accused of the right to seek a defense counsel. The counsel is allowed to read the case file as well as to communicate with the accused.(Article 64 Rwandan CPC)
  • Article 18 of the Rwandan Constitution states that the “right to defence” is absolute at “all levels and degrees of proceedings before administrative, judicial and all other decision making organs.” [33] Article 19 further states that the accused has a right to a public and fair hearing “all the necessary guarantees for defence have been made available.” [34] This idea has been affirmed in Article 39 of the Rwandan Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) which reads “any person detained by judicial police shall have the right to consult with his or her legal counsel. In case he or she falls to seek one, he or she shall inform the chairperson of the bar association for assigning a counsel to him or her, but he or she has the right to accept or refuse that counsel.” [35] Moreover, Article 64 of the CCP supplements this right to counsel by stating that a public prosecutor should inform the accused of the right to defence before an interrogation if the accused has not asked for counsel.[36]
  • There has been much controversy surrounding the right to counsel in Rwanda, mostly focusing on the proceedings in the traditional gacaca tribunals. The current gacaca system was adapted from the indigenous form of conflict resolution. [37] The Rwandan government established the gacaca system, promulgated by Organic Law 40/2000, to aid the judicial resolution of the crimes from the 1994 genocide. [38] Traditionally under gacaca law, counsel do not participate at any level in the proceedings. [39] Moreover, the gacaca system gives more powers to the prosecution than the defendants. [40] Defendants are not allowed to call defense witnesses or cross-examine prosecution witnesses. [41] The gacaca system also “allocates investigatory resources to the gacaca councils to prepare and classify the cases against the accused.” [42] However, if convicted, defendants do have the right to appeal the decision.[43]

Uganda

Constitution

  • 28 (3) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall-
    • (e) in the case of any offence which carries a sentence of death or imprisonment for life, be entitled to legal representation at the expense of the State

United Kingdom

  • England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are governed by Article 58(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 (PACE).
    • A person arrested and held in custody in a police Access to station or other premises shall be entitled, if he so requests, to legal advice, consult a solicitor privately at any time.
  • PACE gives the defendants the right to be informed of their legal rights when they are detained, including their right to legal counsel. These rights do not exist in common law.
  • In October 2010, the UK Supreme Court ruled in Cadder v. Her Majesty’s Advocate, (2010) UKSC 43, that the Scottish police can no longer questions a suspect in custody without the presence of a lawyer. The police were allowed to interrogate suspects for up to six hours without the defendant’s lawyer present, however, the Court determined this violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    • Article 6(c) - “to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require.

United States

  • The right to counsel in the United States arises from the Sixth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
  • The Sixth Amendment states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” In Gideon v. Wainwright the right to counsel was incorporated against the states.[44] Thus, this right applies to all federal and state criminal prosecutions where the defendant is accused of a felony or of a misdemeanor and a sentence of incarceration is actually imposed. [45]
  • The right to counsel attaches at the beginning of any adversarial judicial proceedings “whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment.” [46] In the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191, the Supreme Court held 8-1 that "a criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns of the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel." If the defendant had the right to counsel but counsel was not provided, this would be grounds for an automatic reversal of the defendant’s conviction. [47]
  • All indigent defendants who cannot afford to retain an attorney have an absolute right to have counsel appointed to them. [48] The right to counsel does not apply to discretionary appeals or collateral attacks. [49]
  • The Supreme Court has held that an accused has the right under the Sixth Amendment to conduct her own defense in a criminal case. [50] This is known as pro se representation. In order for a defendant to waive the right of counsel, the defendant must knowingly and intelligently waive such a right. [51] The waiver of this right is not absolute as a judge may stop pro se representation if the defendant is not able or willing to abide by the general rules of procedure or courtroom protocol. [52]
  • The Fifth Amendment indirectly promotes the right to counsel in the United States. In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court, in recognizing the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination, notes that if the defendant “indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning [by the police].” [53] The Court reinforced this principle in Edwards v. Arizona, in stating that when the accused expresses his desire to “deal with the police only through counsel, [he] is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges or conversations with the police.” [54] The Court noted that the Miranda-Edwards rule were “designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his right to counsel.” [55]

Zimbabwe

  • The accused shall be permitted to defend themselves or, at their own expense, get a legal representative of their own choice. [56]
  • If the accused cannot afford a legal representative, a magistrate can deem it necessary and desirable and in the interests of justice to certify that such a person have this assistance. [57]

See Rights of the Accused

References

  1. Ronald B. Hurdle & Walter J. Champion Jr., The Life and Times of Napoleon Beazley: The Effective (If Any) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on Texas' 17 & Up Execution Standard, 28 T. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2002).
  2. Ronald B. Hurdle & Walter J. Champion Jr., The Life and Times of Napoleon Beazley: The Effective (If Any) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on Texas' 17 & Up Execution Standard, 28 T. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2002).
  3. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
  4. http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
  5. http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-32.html
  6. CJR (Center for Justice and Reconciliation) Law Review, March 2010.
  7. CJR (Center for Justice and Reconciliation) Law Review, March 2010.
  8. Cambodian Defenders Project- Universal Periodic Report (2009). See also CJR (Center for Justice and Reconciliation) Law Review, March 2010.
  9. http://www.ahrchk.net/pub/mainfile.php/cambodia_judiciary/109/
  10. Dorothy Nichole Giobbe, Legal Aid and the Right to Counsel under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 25 Brook. J. Int'l L. 205 (1999).
  11. Dorothy Nichole Giobbe, Legal Aid and the Right to Counsel under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 25 Brook. J. Int'l L. 205 (1999).
  12. Canadian Department of Justice, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2003/rr03_la4-rr03_aj4/p3.html.
  13. Canadian Department of Justice, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2003/rr03_la4-rr03_aj4/p3.html.
  14. Canadian Department of Justice, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2003/rr03_la4-rr03_aj4/p3.html.
  15. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2003/rr03_la4-rr03_aj4/p4.html
  16. Alberta Solicitor General and Public Safety website, https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/public_security/peace_officers/Publications/Prosecution%20Service%20Advisory%20-%20Detention%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Counsel.pdf
  17. Alberta Solicitor General and Public Safety website, https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/public_security/peace_officers/Publications/Prosecution%20Service%20Advisory%20-%20Detention%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Counsel.pdf
  18. Alberta Solicitor General and Public Safety website, https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/public_security/peace_officers/Publications/Prosecution%20Service%20Advisory%20-%20Detention%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Counsel.pdf
  19. Translation of Criminal Procedure Law available at http://www.cecc.gov/pages/newLaws/criminalProcedureENG.php.
  20. Realizing Justice: The Development of Fair Trial Rights in China, 2 Chin. L.P.R. 108 (2007).
  21. Realizing Justice: The Development of Fair Trial Rights in China, 2 Chin. L.P.R. 108 (2007).
  22. Realizing Justice: The Development of Fair Trial Rights in China, 2 Chin. L.P.R. 108 (2007).
  23. Indian Constitution, article 22(1) available at http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03022.html.
  24. Law Commission of India, 48th Report (Some Questions Under the Code of Criminal Procedure), July 1972, para. 17 available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report48.pdf
  25. Law Commission of India, 48th Report (Some Questions Under the Code of Criminal Procedure), July 1972, para. 17 available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report48.pdf
  26. Law Commission of India, 48th Report (Some Questions Under the Code of Criminal Procedure), July 1972, para. 17 available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report48.pdf
  27. Ranchod Mathur Wasawa v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 3 SCC 581 available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1311363/
  28. Riddhi Dasgupta, Changing Face of the Law: A Global Perspective p 591 (2006).
  29. 1983) 3 SCC 307 available at http://www.courtjudgments.org/ranjan-dwivedi-vs-union-of-india/.
  30. Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 350 (1990); see also Paternalism versus Pugnacity: The Right to Counsel in Japan and the United States, 72 Ind. L.J. 291 (1996).
  31. Frank Bennett Jr. Pretrial Detention in Japan: Overview and Introductory Note, 23 Law in Japan 67 (1990). See also Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 350 (1990); see also Paternalism versus Pugnacity: The Right to Counsel in Japan and the United States, 72 Ind. L.J. 291 (1996)
  32. Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 350 (1990); see also Paternalism versus Pugnacity: The Right to Counsel in Japan and the United States, 72 Ind. L.J. 291 (1996).
  33. Rwandan Constitution of 2003, http://www.kituochakatiba.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1180&Itemid=36
  34. Ministry of Justice- Codes and Laws of Rwanda, http://www.amategeko.net/display_article.php?Motcle_ID=24811&Information_ID=1333&Parent_ID=30693517&type=public
  35. Ministry of Justice- Codes and Laws of Rwanda, http://www.amategeko.net/display_article.php?Motcle_ID=24811&Information_ID=1333&Parent_ID=30693517&type=public
  36. Ministry of Justice- Codes and Laws of Rwanda, http://www.amategeko.net/display_rubrique.php?ActDo=ShowArt&Information_ID=1333&Parent_ID=30693517&type=public&Langue_ID=An&rubID=30693551
  37. Leah Werchick, Prospects for Justice in Rwanda’s Citizen Tribunals, 8 No. 3 Hum. Rts. Brief 15 (2001), available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/08/3rwanda.cfm
  38. L. Danielle Tully, Human Rights Compliance and the Gacaca Jurisdictions in Rwanda, 26 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 385 (2003)
  39. Leah Werchick, Prospects for Justice in Rwanda’s Citizen Tribunals, 8 No. 3 Hum. Rts. Brief 15 (2001), available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/08/3rwanda.cfm
  40. Leah Werchick, Prospects for Justice in Rwanda’s Citizen Tribunals, 8 No. 3 Hum. Rts. Brief 15 (2001), available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/08/3rwanda.cfm
  41. Leah Werchick, Prospects for Justice in Rwanda’s Citizen Tribunals, 8 No. 3 Hum. Rts. Brief 15 (2001), available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/08/3rwanda.cfm
  42. Leah Werchick, Prospects for Justice in Rwanda’s Citizen Tribunals, 8 No. 3 Hum. Rts. Brief 15 (2001), available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/08/3rwanda.cfm
  43. L. Danielle Tully, Human Rights Compliance and the Gacaca Jurisdictions in Rwanda, 26 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 385 (2003)
  44. 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
  45. Right to Counsel, 87 Geo. L.J. 1519 (1999).
  46. Right to Counsel, 87 Geo. L.J. 1519 (1999).
  47. Right to Counsel, 87 Geo. L.J. 1519 (1999).
  48. Right to Counsel, 87 Geo. L.J. 1519 (1999).
  49. Right to Counsel, 87 Geo. L.J. 1519 (1999).
  50. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
  51. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).
  52. Right to Counsel, 87 Geo. L.J. 1519 (1999).
  53. 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966).
  54. 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981).
  55. 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981).
  56. Constitution section (18)(3)(d).
  57. Legal Aid Act, part III section (10)(1)(a-b), 1996.