An image from a pro-government website showing the set up of the court on 19 March 2013 (without showing the security forces between the defendants and their families at rear.) II. Access to prosecution evidence and right to submit defence documents 36. The defence team was not provided with the indictment containing the charges and the prosecution case until after the first hearing had taken place. The case documents run to approximately 6000 pages. The copy received by defence lawyers did not contain the defence documents which had been handed to the judge at court during the first hearing on 4 th March. The judge, whose first reaction was to refuse to take them, was however eventually persuaded that he should. The documents however did not make their way into the court bundle as expected. The judicial reaction to and treatment of the defence documents clearly indicates that they are considered to be of less value than the prosecution’s. These matters amount to further breaches of the equality of arms principle. III. Access to clients to take instructions. 37. The defence lawyers were not given the opportunity to see all of the defendants before the trial and were therefore not able to prepare properly for the hearing. Of the legal conferences that did take place in the detention facilities, it is believed that none of them complied with requirements of legal privilege and were all in the presence of state security officials. If this is correct, it amounts to the most fundamental breach of lawyer client privilege. 38. The defendants have been placed in the court not only behind a glass screen but also behind a row of guards. It is impossible therefore for the defence lawyers to take instructions from their clients. The only time that communication can take place between lawyers and clients is during brief prison conferences away from the court. The coalition has been informed that it had not been possible for all defendants to have access to a lawyer by the time of the first hearing. IV. The right to liberty and security. 39. All the male defendants in the case except for one continue to be kept in custody. Some of these defendants have been in detention for a year in appalling conditions and are alleged to have suffered torture and ill treatment as set out above. 40. All of the defendants are known previously to be of good character. They are people of high standing in society. They include Sheikh Sultan bin Kayed AlQasimi, chairman of Al-Islah and cousin of the ruler of the Emirate Ras alKhaimah, three judges and two very prominent and highly respected constitutional and human rights lawyers Dr Mohammed Al-Mansoori and Dr Mohammed Al-Roken. The defendants argue that given the strong family and social ties in the country there is no risk that they will attempt to flee the jurisdiction. Some of the defendants are now in seriously ill health, in particular Ahmed Bin Ghaith Al-Suwaidi, a senior civil servant and renowned economist, whose confession forms the centerpiece of the prosecution case. He appears in very poor physical and mental health and his family is deeply concerned for him. 41. There has not been an opportunity to appeal the decisions to refuse bail. No reasons have been given for the decisions. 42. The trial has to date been heard on days at a rate of one or two days per week. It is not known when or at what rate further hearings will take place. Where defendants are held in custody pending the determination of a criminal charge 9