47 c) the right of the four persons in this case to be presumed innocent was never violated, since it was not until the final ruling that they were considered guilty of the crime with which they were charged. 138. The Court observes that Article 717 of the Code of Military Justice, which is the applicable law in treason cases, provides that once the criminal indictment has been produced, the case files will be made available to the defense for a period of twelve hours. In the instant case, the criminal indictment was presented on January 2, 1994, and the attorneys were allowed to view the file on January 6, for a very brief time. The judgment was delivered the following day. As the applicable law dictated, the defense was never allowed to cross-examine the DINCOTE agents who participated in the investigation. 139. In the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, number 8 -under the heading of “Special safeguards in criminal justice matters”- sets out the proper standards for an adequate defense in criminal cases. It reads as follows: All arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality. Such consultations may be within sight, but not within the hearing, of law enforcement officials.93 140. Mr. Astorga Valdez’ conviction illustrates even more vividly what little chance the accused had of putting on an effective defense. In his case, the accused was convicted in the court of last instance, based on new evidence that his defense attorney had not seen and consequently could not rebut. 141. This particular case illustrates how the work of the defense attorneys was shackled and what little opportunity they had to introduce any evidence for the defense. In effect, the accused did not have sufficient advance notification, in detail, of the charges against them; the conditions under which the defense attorneys had to operate were wholly inadequate for a proper defense, as they did not have access to the case file until the day before the ruling of first instance was delivered. The effect was that the presence and participation of the defense attorneys were mere formalities. Hence, it can hardly be argued that the victims had adequate means of defense. 142. The Court therefore finds that the State violated Article 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention. *** VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8(2)(D) (RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL OF ONE’S CHOOSING) 143. Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention provides as follows: 93. United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, relative to the special safeguards in criminal justice matters, approved by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders at its meeting in Havana, Cuba, from 27 August to 7 September 1990.