![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkjvnB6T-LbdTj0YLhW-qnCivWs8qw5SGgaT5Yu7jxCl1Xv0SMk1_cXMUUGIgaX9M52jNfV5m8Smc5KCFcBMqirZOG-zcYonYtrRNaFkeHmum5-s5EyBMl5QgjpGN884mJ51swISjIKtlF/s200/california_criminal_defense_lawyer.jpg)
Yesterday, the Grand Chamber issued its judgment in the case of
Salduz, about a 17 year-old boy who was questioned in a police station without having access to a lawyer and was subsequently convicted, mainly on his confession made at the police station. Contrary to the earlier
judgment of a Chamber of the Court (2007), the Grand Chamber unanimously found a violation of Article 6(3-e), the right to legal assistance. The concurring opinions are very much worth reading. One of them argues for a reopening of the trial on the national level as the best way of achieving
restitutio in integrum - and thus continues the debate on how precisely the Court should indicate what a state should do to remedy a violation of the Convention.