I write in reply to the news item about the right to legal assistance in connection with police interrogations entitled European court judgment found fault because Turk was a minor (TMID, 27 March).

First of all I wish to thank this newspaper for the correct reporting of my press release carried last Tuesday on the same subject.

Secondly, I have spoken in parliament about the issue before the Salduz judgment, but that speech was not reported in the local media. In fact I spoke in parliament on 25 June 2008, which speech can be seen on my website www.francodebono.info, whilst the Salduz judgment dates 27 November 2008.

So I had called for the introduction of some form of legal assistance before, or during police interrogation in one of my first speeches in parliament, and before the salduz judgment.

With regards to your comments on the Salduz judgment I wish to point out that it is a 24 page European court of human rights document in which various legal issues were raised and decided upon, including the fact that applicant was a minor.

One could be legalistic, technical or even academic when discussing such a judgment, however the fact that applicant was a minor is of secondary importance to the issue I raised both in parliament and in my press release.

In fact, paragraph 27 of judgment states that in Turkey “anyone suspected or accused of a criminal offence had a right of access to a lawyer from the moment they were taken in police custody”.

Now it is already of great concern, that even Turkey, which is not exactly a country renowned for its high standards of human rights protection, grants this right, but not Malta.

Furthermore, the court ruled that, paragraph 51 “in such circumstances, article 6 will normally require that the accused be allowed to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer already at the initial stages of police interrogation”, and yet again in paragraph 55 “against this background, the court finds that in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently ‘practical and effective’ article 6 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police.”

In fact as you stated in your article “to make it clear, the European court considers legal representation prior to, and during interrogation, to be a fundamental human right”.

Without dealing with aspects of the judgment which have no bearing on the present issue, and which could only mislead, the relevant considerations are:

a) Why is a legal provision which has been passed through parliament more than six years ago, not been put in force?

b) If denying access to legal assistance at some stage of police interrogation is in breach of fundamental human rights, I strongly urge that the situation be remedied as quickly as possible.

As regards other comments, I just wish to remind that even the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination are fundamental human rights, which are protected both in our constitution, and the European convention of human rights.

Dr Debono is a Nationalist Party MP