The Plaintiff’s argument in support of this issue was categorized into three; that his appointment was terminated without regards to due process and he was convicted without proper investigation; that he was denied access to the records of proceedings to enable him pursue his appeal; and that there was no access to his counsel while in Mile 2 prison. The Defendant submitted that the trial of the Plaintiff started with an investigation by the investigating body which formed the basis of the Plaintiff’s arrest and trial and that the trial was in accordance with due process. As regards the pre-trial stage (inquiry, investigation), the Court considers criminal proceedings as a whole, including the pre-trial stage of the proceedings since the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with the necessary pre-trial procedural rights of the accused. In the case of VERA FERNÁNDEZ-HUIDOBRO V. SPAIN, APP. NO. 108114, the ECHR reiterated this point when it delivered itself as follows: “Although investigating officers do not determine a “criminal charge”, the steps taken by them have a direct influence on the conduct and fairness of the subsequent proceedings, including the actual trial. Accordingly, Article 6 (1) may be held to be applicable to the investigation procedure conducted by an investigating officer, although some of the procedural safeguards envisaged by Article 6 (1) might not apply”. Due process of law is interpreted here as rules that are administered through courts of justice or tribunals in accordance with established and sanctioned legal principles and procedures; with safeguards for the protection of individual rights. 27