oa4071 163. Consequently, the Applicant's rights to be informed of the charges brought against him and to gain access to the record of the proceedings, guaranteed under Article 14(3)(a) of ICCPR, were violated . c) Alleged violation of the right to be represented by counsel 164. Invoking Article 14(3)(d) of ICCPR, the Applicant alleges that before CRIET his right to counsel was violated. He argues that, in criminal matters, the accused may request to be tried in his absence by being represented by his lawyer or by a public defender, adding that, in both investigative and criminal cases, even in the absence of a letter, the tribunal and the Assize Courts are obliged to hear the lawyer who comes forward to defend the accused or the detainee, the absence of a letter affecting only the characterization of the judgment; that being the case, the Applicant had before the date of 18 October 2018, apologised and indicated that he did not intend to appear. 165. The Applicant alleges that despite the above correspondence, CRIET against all expectation, refused to receive his panel of lawyers on the pretext that CRIET should first indict him. * 166. The Respondent State refutes the Applicant's allegations and asserts that the Applicant's right to counsel has not been violated. It submits that the Applicant enjoyed all his rights to defence before the First Instance Court of Cotonou, in as much as he was assisted by at least twenty-six (26) lawyers; and that the said lawyers did not at any time during the procedure, request a postponement thereof so as to better prepare their defence. 167. The Respondent State contends that it was rather the Applicant who, in deciding not to appear before CRIET, failed to fulfil the legal conditions for him to be assisted in his absence. The Respondent State submits that examination of the case before CRIET was not limited to issues of civil interest or objections but also concerned matters relating to the merits of the case. *** I