defendant‟s choice and argues that where the accused either had no access, or only restricted or delayed access, to lawyers, there is a violation of Article 7(1) (c). They contend that this right guarantees the right to timely and confidential consultations with that counsel.62 132. The Complainants further argue that although the European system has recognized that in certain exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to limit the right to counsel, such restrictions can only be allowed if they are no more than strictly necessary and do not hinder the fairness of the proceedings.63 The Complainants refer the African Commission to the case of Ocalan v. Turkey, where the court held inter alia that the denial of access to a lawyer for ten days during interrogations, “a situation where the rights of the defence might well be irretrievably prejudiced”, interfered with the fairness of the proceedings and violated the defendant‟s human rights.64 133. In the instant matter, the Complainants state that none of the Victims had lawyers present at the critical early interrogation stage. They argue that on 23 November 2004 a group of human rights lawyers submitted a specific request to the Public Prosecutor‟s Office (registered under number 16332) to legally represent a number of individuals, including the First Victim but received no response. They submit that the First Victim was denied representation at interrogations for a period of 5 months until 24 March 2005 and the Second and Third Victims had no access to counsel until 26 March 2006, when they first appeared in court. 62 As noted by the Human Rights Committee in relation to the right to a lawyer under the ICCPR “[c]ounsel should be able to meet their clients in private and to communicate with the accused in conditions that fully respect the confidentiality of their communications. Furthermore, lawyers should be able to advise and to represent persons charged with a criminal offence in accordance with generally recognised professional ethics without restrictions, influence, pressure or undue interference from any quarter” (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32 (above, n. 60), para. 34. 63 See Öcalan v. Turkey (above n. 43), para. 131; Murray v. United Kingdom (Appl. no. 18731/91), ECHR (Grand Chamber), Series A, No. 300-A, para. 63. 64 Öcalan v. Turkey, para. 131. 37