A/HRC/WGAD/2021/42 family or counsel, should not be denied for more than a matter of days. Furthermore, in its general comment No. 32 (2007), in which it interpreted article 14 of the Covenant, the Human Rights Committee stressed that a detainee has the right to have prompt access to legal counsel, which means that a lawyer must be granted the appropriate access and facilities to have private communication and meetings with the detainee and to attend all the investigations without interference or restrictions. A detainee ought also to have access to effective counsel. In accordance with principle 2 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, this means that it is the duty of the competent authorities to ensure that lawyers have access to appropriate information, files and documents in their possession or control in sufficient time to enable lawyers to provide effective legal assistance to their clients and that such access should be provided at the earliest appropriate time. The effectiveness of legal counsel is fundamentally related to the principle of equality of arms, which is enshrined in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant, which protect the right of detainees to be given the time and facilities necessary to prepare and present their defence with the appropriate legal assistance, for when the trial takes place. 73. In the cases of Mr. Gharib and Mr. Elsayed, the right to prompt recourse to effective legal counsel has allegedly been denied, as the two men have been prevented by the authorities from communicating with their lawyers during detention. The Government has failed to rebut these credible allegations made by the source. 74. The rights of all detainees to communicate with the outside world and to be visited by family, are fundamental safeguards against any attempts by the authorities to violate their human rights, including through torture or other ill-treatment and through enforced disappearance. 75. The right to receive visits applies to all detainees, regardless of the offence of which they are suspected or accused. In line with principle 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, this right could be subject only to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations. 76. As stipulated in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, detainees should be protected from any practices that violate their right to be free from any act that could cause severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, and that are inflicted intentionally on a person. According to the Committee against Torture, the right to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment or punishment is absolute. In other words, it applies in all circumstances and may never be restricted, including in times of war or during states of emergency. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including threats of terrorism or other violent crime, may be invoked to justify torture or other ill-treatment. Such prohibition applies irrespective of the offence allegedly committed by the accused person. 77. The source alleges that Mr. Gharib and Mr. Elsayed have been denied, by the prison authorities, adequate medical attention and treatment despite suffering from grave health conditions that need urgent and effective medical care. 78. Every detainee has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. This right extends not only to timely and appropriate health care but also to underlying determinants of health, such as adequate food, water and sanitation. Moreover, sick prisoners whose health conditions require specialist treatment should be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals. In the present case, the Working Group considers that the failure to provide access to adequate medical care when needed, in addition to being detained under conditions that could amount to torture or ill-treatment, while facing a criminal trial, has created a situation in which it cannot be considered that the fundamental principle of equality of arms could be respected. This is an additional element leading the Working Group to consider that the right to a fair trial was not guaranteed by the authorities in respect of Mr. Gharib and Mr. Elsayed. 79. For these reasons, the Working Group finds that the fair trial rights of Mr. Gharib and Mr. Elsayed, under articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant, have been violated and that, as such, their detentions are arbitrary under category III. 10