93 offense, pursuant to Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention. 175. Since during the investigation stage the defense counsel is not allowed to be present while the accused makes a statement and, as it happened in the instant case, the defense counsel had to submit a request to the Prosecutor for evidentiary measures to be taken without having had access neither to the investigation procedures nor to the charges brought against the accused, his right to be assisted by a legal counsel as enshrined in Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention was also violated. The defense counsel was allowed to take part in the proceedings only after the investigation stage had concluded and the case was referred to the military court for trial. It was then that the Prosecutor ordered to forward the record of the case to Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s counsel so that a response to the charges brought against the accused be filed (supra paras. 63(62) and 63(64)). 176. Furthermore, the Court highlights that upon requesting release from prison Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s counsel, without having had access to the record of the case, requested that confrontations be made between the statements given by the accused and the versions thereon described in the arguments of the Military Prosecutors, “as the existence of relevant contradictions which had to be clarified was noticed” (supra para. 63(47)). The Naval Prosecutor of Magallanes dismissed such request, which shows the difficulties faced by the defense in forwarding the evidence. 177. The Court considers that the impossibility to access to the procedures adopted during the investigation stage and forward evidence prevented Mr. Palamara-Iribarne from defending himself adequately. When Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s counsel had access to the record of the case after it was referred to the military court on October 24, 1994 for trial, pursuant to Article 150 of the Code of Military Justice, only six days were available to file a response to the “charges broug[ht] against the accused.” It was only on February 20, 1995 that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s counsel, upon filing a response to the Prosecution’s case, was able to forward his evidence in the proceedings (supra para. 63(65)). 178. Furthermore, and closely related to the foregoing, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that the accused has the right to examine the witnesses who give testimony both for the defense and the prosecution, under the same conditions, in order to exercise his defense. This decision has been endorsed by the European Court.203 The Court has established that in any proceedings all the required elements must concur so that “there is the greatest possible balance between the parties, for the sake of the defense of the interests and rights thereof. This implies, among other aspects, that the principle of adversary proceeding must prevail.”204 203 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 190, para. 184; and Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al., supra note 192, para. 154. In the same regard, cf. Case of Salov v. Ukraine, No. 65518/01, § 87, September 6, 2005; Case of Storck v. Germany, No. 61603/00, § 161, May 12, 2005; and Case of Öcalan v. Turkey, No. 46221/99, § 140, March 12, 2003. 204 Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 132. In the same regard, cf. Case of Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland, No. 50230/99, § 34, February 3, 2004; Case of Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom, No. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 52, July 22, 2003; Case of Öcalan v. Turkey, No. 46221/99, § 146, March 12, 2003.