Skip to main content

Defence

Does everyone accused of a crime get a lawyer, and does the state pay?

Three different rights hide inside that question — to consult a lawyer, to have one appointed, and to have the state pay. Systems grant them separately, on different conditions, and no system in this corpus grants all three to everyone.

Fact-checkedSafety review clearedLast updated Last reviewed

In short

The phrase "right to counsel" is used for at least three things that are granted separately and on different conditions. Keeping them apart is the difference between describing a system and asserting something about it that is not true.

The right to consult a lawyer
That a person may speak to a lawyer at all, and from what point in the process. This is the broadest of the three and the one most often granted without conditions.
The right to have counsel appointed
That where a person has no lawyer, one is assigned. What triggers this differs sharply — in some systems the seriousness of the case, in others the person’s means.
The right to have the state pay
That the cost falls on public funds rather than on the accused. This is the narrowest and the most heavily conditioned, and it is frequently partial rather than total.

Why it exists

The three rights answer different problems. Consultation answers the problem of a person facing a legal process they do not understand. Appointment answers the problem of a person with no practical means of obtaining one, or who is detained and cannot. Payment answers the problem of a person who cannot afford one.

AnalysisA system can solve any of those without solving the others, and most solve them at different points and to different extents. That is why the conditions attach where they do rather than uniformly.

How it works

Germany separates the first two rights cleanly, and the separation is visible in the code. Section 137(1) grants assistance: the accused "kann sich in jeder Lage des Verfahrens des Beistandes eines Verteidigers bedienen" — at any stage of the proceedings — with chosen counsel capped at three. That is not conditioned on means, on the seriousness of the charge, or on anything else.

Section 141 then governs when the appointment happens, and the timing is the substantive part. In cases of necessary defence a Pflichtverteidiger is appointed without delay to an accused who has been informed of the allegation and has no counsel, where he expressly requests it after instruction — and the request must be decided at the latest before any questioning of the accused or confrontation with him. Independently of any request, appointment follows once he is to be brought before a court on detention, once it becomes known that he is held in an institution, where it is apparent in the preliminary proceedings that he cannot defend himself, or where he has been called on to respond to the indictment.

The funding right is where means enter, and it enters differently. France grants aide juridictionnelle on three conditions, one of which is that resources not exceed the admission ceilings — and the State then takes charge of "tout ou partie", all or part, of the costs and of the avocat’s fees, with the amount varying by reference tax income and household size. Brazil states the entitlement in the Constitution itself: under Article 5º LXXIV the State provides full and free legal assistance to those who prove insufficiency of resources.

One French detail is worth isolating, because it shows conditions applying unevenly by design: the habitual-residence condition does not apply to minors, to beneficiaries of a protection order, or to persons involved in criminal proceedings. A condition on a funding scheme is not necessarily a condition on every route into it.

Common misconceptions

Widely held beliefs that do not match how the system actually operates.

  • Common belief: Everyone has the right to a free lawyer.

    In practice: No system in this corpus provides that. France’s aid is means-tested and covers all or part of the fees; Brazil’s constitutional entitlement requires proof of insufficient resources; Germany’s appointment scheme is triggered by the situation rather than by means, and its guarantee of assistance under section 137 says nothing about who pays.

  • Common belief: Publicly funded defence is for poor people.

    In practice: In Germany the cases of necessary defence under section 140 are defined by the seriousness of the matter and the accused’s circumstances. The trigger is what the case is, not what the accused earns.

  • Common belief: The right to a lawyer starts when you are charged.

    In practice: Section 137(1) grants assistance at any stage of German proceedings, and section 141 requires an appointment request to be decided at the latest before questioning. Where the right begins is a question each system answers, and it is frequently earlier than charge.

  • Common belief: If the state pays, the state chooses and controls the lawyer.

    In practice: Appointment, funding and employment are different facts. France pays a private avocat’s fees; Germany appoints a Rechtsanwalt. The funding page on this site sets out which systems couple them and which do not.

  • Common belief: International law guarantees a free lawyer everywhere.

    In practice: International instruments state principles and bind only states party to them; they do not establish what any country provides. This site states each country’s position from that country’s own sources.

How this varies between jurisdictions

A required section on every guide. Arrangements differ between countries, and we say how.

Three questions locate a system, and its answers are independent of one another.

  1. From what point may the accused consult a lawyer at all?
  2. What triggers an appointment — the seriousness of the case, the person’s situation, or their means?
  3. Who pays, and is the coverage total or partial?

AnalysisGermany answers: any stage; the situation, by an enumerated list; and the funding question is answered elsewhere in its law rather than in these provisions. France answers: not established here; means; and all or part. Two systems, and no shared answer among the three.

Rights and accountability

AnalysisThe distinctions are not pedantry. A person told they have "a right to a lawyer" may hold a right to consult one at their own expense, a right to have one appointed because of what they are charged with, or a right to have the state pay — and which of those it is determines whether the right is usable by them.

What we could not establish

  • Only Germany, Brazil and France were reached from primary sources. Where a country is named the statement is limited to what its own source establishes, and the underlying procedural right to counsel in France and Brazil was not researched.
  • This page describes what systems provide. It does not state what anyone is entitled to in any particular situation, and it is not a guide to obtaining representation.
  • The European Convention on Human Rights could not be read from an authoritative source for this wave, so no Convention provision is quoted or relied on.

Where to go next

Related: how defence is funded and provided, what defence counsel does, and why the right to defence matters. The safeguard most often stated alongside counsel in the same constitutional provision is the right to silence.

Where this connects

Institutions: Prosecution service.

Sources

  1. Strafprozessordnung (StPO) § 137 — Recht des Beschuldigten auf Hinzuziehung eines Verteidigers

    Bundesministerium der Justiz / Bundesamt für Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) · Legislation · link verified 2026-08-26

    The authoritative German text, read directly. Supports § 137(1) verbatim: "Der Beschuldigte kann sich in jeder Lage des Verfahrens des Beistandes eines Verteidigers bedienen" — the accused may avail himself of the assistance of defence counsel AT ANY STAGE of the proceedings — and that the number of chosen counsel may not exceed three. Cited for the existence and timing of the right to counsel in Germany. It says nothing about who pays, nothing about appointment, and nothing about any other country.

  2. Strafprozessordnung (StPO) § 140 — Notwendige Verteidigung

    Bundesministerium der Justiz / Bundesamt für Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) · Legislation · link verified 2026-08-26

    The authoritative German text, read directly. Supports that § 140(1) enumerates the situations constituting a case of necessary defence, including where the first-instance trial is expected before the Oberlandesgericht, Landgericht or Schöffengericht; where a Verbrechen is charged; where the proceedings may lead to a professional ban; where the accused is to be brought before a court on detention or provisional placement; where he is held in an institution by judicial order or with judicial permission; where placement for a psychiatric assessment is in question; and further defined cases. Cited for the central comparative fact that the German trigger is the SERIOUSNESS OF THE MATTER AND THE ACCUSED'S SITUATION, not the accused's means. It establishes no means test, and it is not evidence about any other system.

  3. Strafprozessordnung (StPO) § 141 — Zeitpunkt der Bestellung eines Pflichtverteidigers

    Bundesministerium der Justiz / Bundesamt für Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) · Legislation · link verified 2026-08-26

    The authoritative German text, read directly. Supports § 141(1): in cases of necessary defence, a Pflichtverteidiger is appointed without delay ("unverzüglich") to an accused who has been informed of the allegation and has no counsel, where he expressly requests it after instruction, and the request is to be decided at the latest before any questioning of the accused or confrontation with him. And § 141(2): appointment occurs INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY REQUEST once he is to be brought before a court on detention or provisional placement, once it becomes known he is held in an institution, where it is apparent in the preliminary proceedings that he cannot defend himself, or where he has been called on to respond to the indictment. Cited for the timing and mechanics of APPOINTMENT. The provision concerns appointment, not employment: the appointed defender is a Rechtsanwalt, and nothing here supports describing a Pflichtverteidiger as a state employee or as a public defender in the United States sense.

  4. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988

    Presidência da República — Casa Civil (Planalto) · Legislation · 1988-10-05 · link verified 2026-07-25

    The authoritative Portuguese text, read in full. THE backbone of the Brazil pages. Supports: the federation of the Union, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities, 'todos autônomos' (Art. 18; Art. 1); separation of powers (Art. 2); the criminal-justice guarantees of Art. 5 — devido processo legal (LIV), contraditório e ampla defesa (LV), presumption of innocence 'ninguém será considerado culpado até o trânsito em julgado de sentença penal condenatória' (LVII), and habeas corpus (LXVIII); that penal and procedural law are the EXCLUSIVE (privativa) competence of the Union (Art. 22, I) while direito penitenciário is CONCURRENT (Art. 24, I) and the States hold the reserved/residual competences (Art. 25 §1); public security through the six órgãos of Art. 144 (I polícia federal; II rodoviária federal; III ferroviária federal; IV polícias civis; V polícias militares e corpos de bombeiros militares; VI polícias penais, added by EC 104/2019), with the polícias civis 'dirigidas por delegados de polícia de carreira' exercising 'as funções de polícia judiciária e a apuração de infrações penais, exceto as militares' (§4), the polícias militares holding 'a polícia ostensiva e a preservação da ordem pública' (§5), and both subordinate to the Governors (§6); the Judiciary organs of Art. 92 (STF, CNJ, STJ, TST, TRFs/Juízes Federais, and the labour, electoral, military and state courts), the STF as guardian of the Constitution (Art. 102), the CNJ (Art. 103-B) and state justice (Art. 125); the Ministério Público as 'instituição permanente, essencial à função jurisdicional do Estado' defending 'a ordem jurídica, o regime democrático e os interesses sociais e individuais indisponíveis', with autonomy and the principles of unidade, indivisibilidade e independência funcional (Art. 127), its structure MPU (MPF/MPT/MPM/MPDFT) + MPE (Art. 128), its functions including promoting 'privativamente, a ação penal pública' (Art. 129 I) and the inquérito civil / ação civil pública for interesses difusos e coletivos (Art. 129 III), and the CNMP (Art. 130-A); and that the Union organizes and maintains the Judiciary, Ministério Público and police of the Federal District (Art. 21, XIII–XIV). The Portuguese text alone has legal effect. WAVE 12 ADDITION, further clauses of Art. 5 read directly from the same Planalto text: XXXV a lei não excluirá da apreciação do Poder Judiciário lesão ou ameaça a direito; XXXVI the law shall not impair a vested right, a perfect juridical act or res judicata; XXXVII não haverá juízo ou tribunal de exceção; XXXIX não há crime sem lei anterior que o defina, nem pena sem prévia cominação legal; XL a lei penal não retroagirá, salvo para beneficiar o réu; LVI evidence obtained by unlawful means is inadmissible in the process; LXXV the State shall indemnify a person convicted by judicial error and one held beyond the term fixed in the sentence; LXXVIII reasonable duration of proceedings and the means guaranteeing the speed of their handling, in the judicial and administrative spheres. WAVE 14 ADDITION, further provisions read directly from the same Planalto text: Art. 5º LXXIV “o Estado prestará assistência jurídica integral e gratuita aos que comprovarem insuficiência de recursos”; Art. 5º LXXVI that civil birth registration and the death certificate are free, in the form of the law, for the recognisedly poor; Art. 5º LXXVII that actions of habeas corpus and habeas data are free, as are, in the form of the law, the acts necessary to the exercise of citizenship; Art. 103-B § 4º that the Conselho Nacional de Justiça has competence for “o controle da atuação administrativa e financeira do Poder Judiciário e do cumprimento dos deveres funcionais dos juízes”, including safeguarding the autonomy of the Judiciary and issuing regulatory acts (I), reviewing the legality of administrative acts of members or organs of the Judiciary and annulling, revising or setting a period for compliance (II), and receiving complaints against members or organs of the Judiciary including its auxiliary services and delegated notarial and registry services, taking over disciplinary proceedings in course and ordering removal, availability or retirement and applying other administrative sanctions (III); Art. 133 “O advogado é indispensável à administração da justiça, sendo inviolável por seus atos e manifestações no exercício da profissão, nos limites da lei”; and Art. 134 in its current wording, that the Defensoria Pública is a permanent institution essential to the jurisdictional function of the State, incumbent on it, as an expression and instrument of the democratic regime, fundamentally to provide legal guidance, the promotion of human rights and the defence, in all degrees, judicial and extrajudicial, of the individual and collective rights of the needy. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same Planalto text. Brazil states its emergency architecture as a closed system: two regimes, an exhaustive list of measures for each, and an express preservation of liability afterwards. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136, caput: “Art. 136. O Presidente da República pode, ouvidos o Conselho da República e o Conselho de Defesa Nacional, decretar estado de defesa para preservar ou prontamente restabelecer, em locais restritos e determinados, a ordem pública ou a paz social ameaçadas por grave e iminente instabilidade institucional ou atingidas por calamidades de grandes proporções na natureza.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 § 2º, added after adversarial review found this platform quoting it from a record that did not carry it, and re-verified against the Planalto text: “§ 2º O tempo de duração do estado de defesa não será superior a trinta dias, podendo ser prorrogado uma vez, por igual período, se persistirem as razões que justificaram a sua decretação.” Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §1º, I–II: “I - restrições aos direitos de: a) reunião, ainda que exercida no seio das associações; b) sigilo de correspondência; c) sigilo de comunicação telegráfica e telefônica; II - ocupação e uso temporário de bens e serviços públicos, na hipótese de calamidade pública, respondendo a União pelos danos e custos decorrentes.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §3º, I–IV: “§ 3º Na vigência do estado de defesa: I - a prisão por crime contra o Estado, determinada pelo executor da medida, será por este comunicada imediatamente ao juiz competente, que a relaxará, se não for legal, facultado ao preso requerer exame de corpo de delito à autoridade policial; II - a comunicação será acompanhada de declaração, pela autoridade, do estado físico e mental do detido no momento de sua autuação; III - a prisão ou detenção de qualquer pessoa não poderá ser superior a dez dias, salvo quando autorizada pelo Poder Judiciário; IV - é vedada a incomunicabilidade do preso.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §§4º–7º: “§ 4º Decretado o estado de defesa ou sua prorrogação, o Presidente da República, dentro de vinte e quatro horas, submeterá o ato com a respectiva justificação ao Congresso Nacional, que decidirá por maioria absoluta. § 5º Se o Congresso Nacional estiver em recesso, será convocado, extraordinariamente, no prazo de cinco dias. § 6º O Congresso Nacional apreciará o decreto dentro de dez dias contados de seu recebimento, devendo continuar funcionando enquanto vigorar o estado de defesa. § 7º Rejeitado o decreto, cessa imediatamente o estado de defesa.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 138, caput: “Art. 138. O decreto do estado de sítio indicará sua duração, as normas necessárias a sua execução e as garantias constitucionais que ficarão suspensas, e, depois de publicado, o Presidente da República designará o executor das medidas específicas e as áreas abrangidas.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 139: “Art. 139. Na vigência do estado de sítio decretado com fundamento no art. 137, I, só poderão ser tomadas contra as pessoas as seguintes medidas: I - obrigação de permanência em localidade determinada; II - detenção em edifício não destinado a acusados ou condenados por crimes comuns; III - restrições relativas à inviolabilidade da correspondência, ao sigilo das comunicações, à prestação de informações e à liberdade de imprensa, radiodifusão e televisão, na forma da lei; IV - suspensão da liberdade de reunião; V - busca e apreensão em domicílio; VI - intervenção nas empresas de serviços públicos; VII - requisição de bens. Parágrafo único. Não se inclui nas restrições do inciso III a difusão de pronunciamentos de parlamentares efetuados em suas Casas Legislativas, desde que liberada pela respectiva Mesa.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 141 and parágrafo único: “Art. 141. Cessado o estado de defesa ou o estado de sítio, cessarão também seus efeitos, sem prejuízo da responsabilidade pelos ilícitos cometidos por seus executores ou agentes. Parágrafo único. Logo que cesse o estado de defesa ou o estado de sítio, as medidas aplicadas em sua vigência serão relatadas pelo Presidente da República, em mensagem ao Congresso Nacional, com especificação e justificação das providências adotadas, com relação nominal dos atingidos e indicação das restrições aplicadas.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 60 §§1º and 4º: “§ 1º A Constituição não poderá ser emendada na vigência de intervenção federal, de estado de defesa ou de estado de sítio. […] § 4º Não será objeto de deliberação a proposta de emenda tendente a abolir: I - a forma federativa de Estado; II - o voto direto, secreto, universal e periódico; III - a separação dos Poderes; IV - os direitos e garantias individuais.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 142, caput and §1º: “Art. 142. As Forças Armadas, constituídas pela Marinha, pelo Exército e pela Aeronáutica, são instituições nacionais permanentes e regulares, organizadas com base na hierarquia e na disciplina, sob a autoridade suprema do Presidente da República, e destinam-se à defesa da Pátria, à garantia dos poderes constitucionais e, por iniciativa de qualquer destes, da lei e da ordem. § 1º Lei complementar estabelecerá as normas gerais a serem adotadas na organização, no preparo e no emprego das Forças Armadas.”. Cited for the closed lists of permitted measures, the immediate judicial communication of an arrest, the congressional role, the express preservation of liability for unlawful acts after the regime ends, and the bar on amending the Constitution while one is in force. It records no declaration of either regime and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Article 5 read incisum by incisum from the same Planalto consolidated text. Supports the caput, and specifically its rights-holder scope: “Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes”. Supports Art. 5º X: “são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação”. Supports Art. 5º XI: “a casa é asilo inviolável do indivíduo, ninguém nela podendo penetrar sem consentimento do morador, salvo em caso de flagrante delito ou desastre, ou para prestar socorro, ou, durante o dia, por determinação judicial” — note that judicial authorisation is textually confined to daytime, which is the narrowest such qualifier found in this wave. Supports Art. 5º XII: “é inviolável o sigilo da correspondência e das comunicações telegráficas, de dados e das comunicações telefônicas, salvo, no último caso, por ordem judicial, nas hipóteses e na forma que a lei estabelecer para fins de investigação criminal ou instrução processual penal” — the exception reaches the LAST-NAMED category only, requires a judicial order, and is confined to criminal investigation or criminal procedural instruction. Supports Art. 5º LIV (“ninguém será privado da liberdade ou de seus bens sem o devido processo legal”), LV (contraditório and ampla defesa in judicial and administrative proceedings), LVI (“são inadmissíveis, no processo, as provas obtidas por meios ilícitos”) and LVII. Supports Art. 5º LXI: “ninguém será preso senão em flagrante delito ou por ordem escrita e fundamentada de autoridade judiciária competente, salvo nos casos de transgressão militar ou crime propriamente militar, definidos em lei”. Supports LXII (arrest and place of custody communicated immediately to the competent judge and to the family or a person indicated). Supports LXIII: “o preso será informado de seus direitos, entre os quais o de permanecer calado, sendo-lhe assegurada a assistência da família e de advogado” — a constitutional notification duty coupled with a silence right, and worded for “o preso”. Supports LXIV, LXV (“a prisão ilegal será imediatamente relaxada pela autoridade judiciária”) and LXVI. Supports § 1º (“As normas definidoras dos direitos e garantias fundamentais têm aplicação imediata”), § 2º (rights expressed in the Constitution do not exclude others deriving from the regime and principles it adopts, or from international treaties to which Brazil is party) and § 3º (“Os tratados e convenções internacionais sobre direitos humanos que forem aprovados, em cada Casa do Congresso Nacional, em dois turnos, por três quintos dos votos dos respectivos membros, serão equivalentes às emendas constitucionais”, added by Emenda Constitucional nº 45 de 2004). VERIFIED NEGATIVE: Article 5 contains no general limitation clause of the Canadian, South African, Kenyan or Swiss kind; limits appear inside individual incisos. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Supremo Tribunal Federal, no statute, nothing about any other country.

  5. Aide juridictionnelle — conditions et démarches (service-public.fr)

    Direction de l’information légale et administrative (Premier ministre), service-public.fr · Government publication · link verified 2026-08-26

    The French government’s official public-information service, read directly in French. Supports that where a person must assert their rights in court but lacks the financial resources, the State takes charge of "tout ou partie" — all or part — of their legal costs and of their AVOCAT'S FEES; that aid is granted on three conditions relating to nationality or habitual residence, to the costs not being covered by insurance, and to resources not exceeding the admission ceilings; that the amount varies with the applicant's reference tax income and household size; and that the habitual-residence condition does not apply to minors, to beneficiaries of a protection order, or to persons involved in criminal proceedings. Cited for the fact that French publicly funded defence is MEANS-TESTED, GRADUATED, AND PAYS A PRIVATE PRACTITIONER. It does not establish the underlying procedural right to counsel in French criminal procedure, which was not researched, and it supports no claim about any other country. The specific financial ceilings are deliberately not reproduced, as they change.

  6. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 999, No. I-14668)

    United Nations · International organisation · 1966 · link verified 2026-07-23

    Authentic treaty text as registered in the UN Treaty Series; registered ex officio 23 March 1976. Supports the fair-trial guarantees of Article 14, including the right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and the presumption of innocence (Art. 14(2)). Binding only on states party to it; does not support claims about states that have not ratified, nor about how any individual state applies it. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same authentic treaty text in the UN Treaty Series PDF, text-extracted locally. Supports Article 14(5) in full: "Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law." The qualifier "according to law" is part of the provision and is load-bearing: the right is to review as the law of the state provides, not to appeal without limit or by any chosen route. Supports Article 14(6): where a person has by a FINAL decision been convicted of a criminal offence and the conviction has subsequently been reversed or the person pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to that person. Supports Article 14(3)(g), that no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt, and Article 14(4), that the procedure for juvenile persons shall take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation. WAVE 20 ADDITION. PROVENANCE, stated precisely because this record's url is a different copy: the Article 4 material below was read on 2026-08-26 from OHCHR's official PDF of the Covenant at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf. The United Nations Treaty Series copy at this record's url timed out repeatedly this session and was not re-read, so nothing in this addition rests on it. Article 4 is the derogation clause, and its four cumulative conditions are the point. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(1): “1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(2), read with Arts. 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 18 as printed in the same document: “2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.”. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(3): “3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.”. The Covenant binds States Parties to it. It is NOT evidence of any particular state's domestic law, and no country claim on this platform rests on it. It designates no organ to proclaim an emergency, assigns no role to any national legislature, and creates no civil-protection institution. The Human Rights Committee's interpretation of this article is cited separately and attributed to the Committee.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the same United Nations Treaty Series PDF, text-extracted and searched. Supports Art. 9(1)-(4), and specifically that the Covenant polices ARBITRARINESS rather than closing a list of grounds: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law”; with 9(2) (informed at the time of arrest of the reasons and promptly of any charges), 9(3) (brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power; it shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody) and 9(4) (entitlement to take proceedings before a court which decides without delay on the lawfulness of the detention). Supports Art. 14(1): “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals”, with the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the closed grounds on which press and public may be excluded, and the rule that judgment shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. Supports Art. 14(3)(e) (“To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”), 14(3)(f) (free assistance of an interpreter) and 14(3)(g) (“Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt” — note that the Covenant adds the confession limb, which the European Convention text does not contain). Supports Art. 14(5). VERIFIED NEGATIVES from exhaustive search of the Covenant text: “proportion” occurs zero times, “equality of arms” zero times, and “remain silent” zero times. This is treaty text binding states party to it; it is not evidence of any state's domestic law, and the corpus invariant forbidding a treaty from standing in for a country applies to it.

  7. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    United Nations · International organisation · 1948-12-10 · link verified 2026-07-23

    Supports the existence and wording of the declared principles of equality before the law (Art. 7), the right to an effective remedy (Art. 8), the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (Art. 10), and the presumption of innocence (Art. 11). A declaration, not a treaty: it does not establish binding obligations, and it does not support any claim about how a particular state implements these principles.