DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. A. WEITZEL AND

               SIR BASIL HALL, JOINED BY MR. E BUSUTTIL

      We regret that we are unable to agree with the opinion of the

majority of the Commission that there has not been a violation of

Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

      In our view, it has not been shown that the District Attorney

informed either lawyer of the applicant when the applicant was to be

interrogated though there is a dispute in this respect as to the

interrogation of 11 April 1985 (see para. 30 of the Report).  It has

equally not been shown that the applicant was told in advance of these

interrogations which would have enabled him to inform his lawyer

thereof.  Indeed, according to the parties' submissions, the applicant

was detained in the vicinity of the District Attorney's Office; it was

thus possible to call him up at any time at short notice without his

having the possibility of contacting his lawyer.

      The Court in its decision placed considerable reliance on what

the applicant had said during those interrogations (see paras. 37 et

seq. of the Report). The interrogations thus had a direct bearing on,

and were of considerable importance for, the applicant's conviction.

      In view of the importance of these interrogations for the outcome

of the trial, and taking the proceedings as a whole, the absence of a

lawyer at all interrogations but one led in our opinion to a

disadvantage which considerably influenced the material position of the

defence at the trial and therefore also the outcome of the proceedings.

      It follows in our view that the applicant did not have a fair

trial in this respect within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention, in particular in that he did not effectively have the

benefit of "legal assistance" as required by Article 6 para. 3 (c) of

the Convention.