004012 160. The Respondent State submits that, in appeal, it is superfluous to re-notify the charges, the notification or the right to information having been satisfied at the preliminary inquiry or before the court. It asserts that the Applicant was notified of the role of CRIET as it was clearly stated that he was being prosecuted for "highrisk international drug trafficking". It alleges that in practice, the elements of a criminal case are not portable, but rather are to be requested, and that it is up to each party, at its own expense, to request from the registry , either the transmission of the documents on file, or the possibility of consulting the file on the spot. *** 161. The Court notes that, in all proceedings, even more so in criminal cases, the purpose of notification of charges is to enable the accused to be informed of the nature of the charges brought against him to enable him to properly prepare his defence. The right to acquire knowledge of the record of proceedings is also an important aspect of the right to a fair trial and is related to the right to defence, more particularly the principle of equality of arms between the parties . Courts therefore have an obligation to strike a fair balance between the parties with a view to enabling them to be aware of and comment on all the evidence tendered by the adverse party. 162. The Court notes that, in this case, the Respondent State does not contest that, before CRIET, not only did the Applicant not receive the file but also that his lawyers were refused on-site consultation. In the circumstances, the Court considers that the Applicant was deprived of the opportunity to be fully informed of the proceedings and of the charges levelled against him and to understand the stakes involved in the case. The Court also considers that mentioning the role of the Court before which the Applicant was arraigned for "high-risk international drug trafficking offence" is not sufficient to relieve the court of the obligation to disclose the record, regardless of whether or not such record is portable or is available on request. The Court finds that, in so doing, CRIET totally deprived the Applicant of the facilities necessary for preparation and presentation of his arguments in I