to intervene before the court retires for deliberations.”23 As a result, it is the right to defence that is actually violated in circumstances where the defence cannot have access to information on which the indictment is based. This conclusion applies to the need to be assisted by a lawyer of one’s own choosing. 107. Lastly, the Commission provides specific information on the right to defence in its Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa. The relevant provisions stipulate that the accused or the accused’s defence counsel has a right “to facilities which assist or may assist the accused in the preparation of his or her defence, to all relevant information held by the prosecution that could help the accused exonerate him or herself, and … It is the duty of the competent authorities to ensure lawyers access to appropriate information, files and documents in their possession or control in sufficient time…”24 108. In the case of the present Communication, the lawyers were only able to have access to the investigation file five (5) months following the detention of the Complainant. Moreover, while waiting for a summons due for 8 May 2012 for the purpose of notification, the lawyers went to the office of the examining magistrate on the eve of that date to consult the case file. They were unable to do so since the latter was absent and did not leave any instruction to that end, whereas at that very moment he was at the prison to notify the Complainant of another charge and his continued detention. These measures seriously prevented access to information and thus violated the right to defence. Avocats Sans Frontières (on behalf of Bwampamye) v. Burundi Communication 231/99 (2000) AHRLR 48 (ACHPR 2000) para 28. 24 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2001) Guidelines N(3)(d), N(3)(e)(3)(i-v). 23 31