Having found that the restriction on the applicant's right to counsel had no justification the Court, in principle, does not need to consider further what effect that restriction had on the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant as the very concept of fairness enshrined in Article 6 requires that the accused have the benefit of the assistance of a lawyer already at the initial stages of police interrogation, unless the restriction on the right to counsel is exceptionally imposed for good cause (see Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2000-VI and Berlinski v. Poland, nos.

Rn. 81 47. Moreover, the Court observes that the present case is different from previous cases concerning the right to legal assistance in pre-trial proceedings (see Salduz (GC), §§ 12-17 and Öcalan (GC), § 131, both cited above; see also Shabelnik, cited above, § 59; Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 7-10, 11 December 2008; Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, §§ 14-22, 2 August 2005; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 41, ECHR 2001-X; Quinn v. Ireland, no. 36887/97, §§ 10-13, 21 December 2000; Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, § 55, ECHR 2000-VI; Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, §§ 8-15, ECHR 2000-VI; and Imbrioscia, §§ 9-19, cited above) because the applicant was not formally arrested or interrogated in police custody.

Nor is it the case that any inferences were drawn from any statements or omissions made by the applicant during the first 24-hour period as was the case in John Murray (cited above; see also Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, § 58, ECHR 2000-VI).

The Court notes that, while the applicant's absconding following the order for his surrender by the Irish Supreme Court was wrongful, it does not render illegitimate his interest in obtaining from this Court a ruling on the alleged violation of the Convention which he maintains took place beforehand (see, mutatis mutandis, Van der Tang v. Spain judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 321, p. 17, § 53 and Averill v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 36408/97, 6 July 1999).

Nor is it the case that any inferences were drawn from any silence by the applicant during this detention period as was the case in John Murray (cited above; see also Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, § 58, ECHR 2000-VI).