6.  The applicant, Oferta Plus S.R.L., is a company incorporated under Moldovan law. 7.  The background to this case lies in a series of complex contractual arrangements made in 1997 concerning importation of electricity from Ukraine to Moldova and involving, in addition to the applicant company, a Moldovan State-owned power distribution company called Moldtranselectro, a Ukrainian State-owned power distribution company and a Ukrainian private company. The agreement to which Oferta Plus was a party provided, inter alia, that it would pay the Ukrainian private company for the electricity supplied to Moldtranselectro in United States dollars (USD) and would later be paid back by Moldtranselectro in Moldovan lei (MDL) at the official exchange rate on the day of payment. 8.  On unspecified dates between 1997 and 1998 the applicant company paid over USD 33,000,000 for the electricity supplied to Moldtranselectro from Ukraine. 9.  On an unspecified date Moldtranselectro paid the applicant company MDL 189,869,277. 10.  On 3 March 1998 the Government of Moldova adopted Decision no. 243 by which the Ministry of Finance was authorised to issue nominative Treasury bonds in favour of private companies for the payment of debts arising from the importation of electricity supplied to state institutions. 11.  On 25 March 1998 Moldtranselectro wrote a letter to the Ministry of Finance asking it to issue a nominative Treasury bond (“Treasury bond”) with a value of MDL 20,000,000 in favour of Oferta Plus. 12.  On 27 March 1998 the Ministry of Finance issued a Treasury bond valued at MDL 20,000,000[1] in favour of the applicant company, payable by 10 July 1998. The Treasury bond provided that the applicant company had to present it to the Ministry of Finance at least ten banking days before the date of payment. It also provided that Moldtranselectro had to present, by that date, to the Ministry of Finance, documents proving the supply of electricity to state institutions. 13.  The applicant company presented the Treasury bond to the Ministry of Finance ten banking days before the date of payment. However, the latter refused to pay, on the ground that Moldtranselectro had failed to submit evidence concerning the payment by Oferta Plus for the imported electricity. 14.  In October 1998 the applicant company initiated civil proceedings against both the Ministry of Finance and Moldtranselectro. The Ministry of Finance defended the action on the grounds set out in paragraph 13 above while Moldtranselectro declined all responsibility. 15.  On 27 October 1999 the Chisinau Economic Court found in favour of the applicant company and confirmed its right to be paid MDL 20,000,000 by the Ministry of Finance, in accordance with the Treasury bond. It based its judgment on the finding that Oferta Plus had paid for energy supplied to Moldtranselectro from Ukraine in accordance with the agreement between them and that that energy had been consumed by state institutions. The court considered that the fact that Moldtranselectro had failed to comply with its obligation in the Treasury bond was not in itself enough to absolve the Ministry of Finance from its obligation to pay. The court also decided to absolve Moldtranselectro of any responsibility. 16.  Since an appeal by the Ministry of Finance was dismissed on 25 November 1999 for failure to pay court fees, a warrant for the enforcement of the judgment of 27 October 1999 was issued to the applicant company in November 1999. 17.  On 14 February 2000 the applicant company officially requested a bailiff to start the enforcement procedure under the warrant. 18.  On 27 April 2000 the Ministry of Finance requested an extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 27 October 1999 and its request was granted. The appeal was examined on its merits and dismissed by a judgment of the Appeals Chamber of the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova on 4 October 2000. The Ministry of Finance lodged an appeal on points of law, reiterating that Moldtranselectro had not complied with its obligation in the Treasury bond. 19.  On 7 February 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgments of 27 October 1999 and 4 October 2000. It found it undisputed that Oferta Plus had paid for electricity supplied from Ukraine to Moldtranselectro and consumed, inter alia, by state institutions. The failure of Moldtranselectro, which was a State company, to fulfil its obligations vis-à-vis the Ministry of Finance by presenting it with the documents required by the latter, could not affect the rights of the applicant company, which had paid for electricity supplied from Ukraine. It noted that the Treasury bond did not contain any provision making the payment dependent on the fulfilment of Moldtranselectro's obligations towards the Ministry of Finance. The court also noted that the applicant company had on many occasions asked the Ministry of Finance for payment, but that the Ministry had refused and had asked for the documents which should have been presented by Moldtranselectro. The court considered the Ministry of Finance's request to be unlawful and argued that, according to the law, it was Moldtranselectro that should have presented the documents. 20.  In March 2001, following a request by the Ministry of Finance, the Prosecutor General's Office introduced a request for annulment of the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice. On 7 May 2001 the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the request and upheld the judgments favourable to the applicant company. It found, inter alia, that both during the proceedings before the lower courts and before the Plenary Supreme Court, it had been established that over MDL 20,000,000 worth of electricity had been supplied to state institutions. The fact that Moldtranselectro had failed to comply with its obligations to the Ministry of Finance could not have had any influence on the right of the applicant company to be paid. 21.  On 19 June 2003 the applicant company sold a part of the Ministry's debt, amounting to MDL 291,801, to a third company. 22.  Since the judgment of 27 October 1999 had still not been enforced, on 26 December 2003, at the applicant company's request, the Ministry of Finance agreed to conclude an agreement according to which the Ministry would pay MDL 2,000,000 each month from January to October 2004 in exchange for the applicant's promise not to initiate further claims for damages. 23.  Between January and March 2004 the Ministry paid MDL 4,000,000 to the applicant company. 24.  On an unspecified date the Ministry paid MDL 291,801 to a third company (see paragraph 21 above). 25.  The Ministry of Finance then stopped making the payments, and on 14 April 2004 the applicant company informed the Government Agent that it had introduced an application with the Court complaining of the failure to enforce the judgment. 26.  On 26 April 2004 the Government Agent informed the Ministry of Finance about the applicant company's application with the Court and requested it to “take all the necessary steps in order to avoid a finding of a violation against the State by the Court, with the consequent impairment of the country's image”. 27.  On 11 May 2004 the Ministry of Finance paid MDL 1,000,000 to the applicant company. There were no further payments after that date. 28.  On 7 June 2004 the Ministry of Finance wrote to the Prosecutor General's Office, informing it, inter alia, that it considered the judgment in favour of the applicant company to be unlawful, but that it had complied with it partially, so that Oferta Plus would not complain to the Court. The Government Agent had informed it that Oferta Plus had already complained to the Court. The Ministry asked the Prosecutor General's Office for advice. 29.  On 8 June 2004 the Prosecutor General's Office wrote to the Ministry as follows:
“...during the proceedings [between the applicant company, Moldtranselectro and the Ministry of Finance] the applicant company and Moldtranselectro presented invoices for MDL 15,608,692, of which by 24 April 1998 only MDL 6,226,504 had been paid.
No other evidence as to the extent to which Oferta Plus had fulfilled its obligations under the agreement [of 1997] has been presented. Despite this the courts ruled in its favour.
In that respect the Prosecutor General's Office has ordered an audit to verify the supply of electricity and the payments between Oferta Plus, Moldtranselectro and state institutions. A final decision will be adopted by the Prosecutor General's Office after the results of the audit become available to it and the Ministry of Finance will be informed accordingly.”
An attempt to carry out this audit was made in August 2004 by a representative of the Ministry of Finance at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office. However, it was unsuccessful because, in accordance with book-keeping legislation, the applicant company had destroyed the accounting documents after three years. 30.  The Ministry of Finance did not wait for a final reply from the Prosecutor General's Office and on 15 June 2004 lodged with the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice a request for revision of the judgments in favour of the applicant company. The request referred to Article 449 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 61 below) but did not specify any reasons for revision. 31.  On 12 July 2004 the applicant company submitted to the Supreme Court its observations on the revision request, in which it argued, inter alia, that the Ministry had not indicated any reasons for revision, that the revision request was time-barred and if the request were to be upheld this would amount to a breach of the principle of legal certainty. 32.  On the same date the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice upheld the revision request, following a hearing at which the Ministry of Finance was represented by the Deputy Prosecutor General. It quashed the judgments in favour of the applicant company and ordered the reopening of the proceedings. It relied on the Prosecutor General's office's letter of 8 June 2004 (see paragraph 29 above), which had been submitted by the Ministry during the hearing. The Plenary considered the letter to be a new and essential fact or circumstance which was unknown and could not have been known earlier, in accordance with the provisions of Article 449 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In particular it considered new and essential the submission of the Prosecutor General's Office that “by 24 April 1998 only MDL 6,226,504 had been paid”. The Supreme Court of Justice did not address in its judgment the objections raised by the applicant company. 33.  On 3 November 2004 the Economic Court of Appeal held a hearing in the reopened proceedings. In contrast with the first round of proceedings, Moldtranselectro sided this time with the Ministry of Finance and argued that Oferta Plus's action should be dismissed because it (Moldtranselectro) had already covered the entire debt for the electricity supplied, including MDL 20,000,000 provided in the Treasury bond, by paying Oferta Plus MDL 189,869,272 on an unspecified date.
The court upheld the applicant company's action and ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay it MDL 20,000,000 in accordance with the Treasury bond. It based its judgment on the fact that the supply of the electricity and the cost of the energy supplied were not disputed by the parties. Referring to the electricity supplied to state institutions, it found that by 1 March 1998 they had consumed MDL 27,551,000 worth of electricity imported from Ukraine with the participation of Oferta Plus.
In the court's view, the Treasury bond constituted an incontestable obligation on the Ministry of Finance towards Oferta Plus, which could not depend on the fulfilment of third-party obligations.
Referring to the submissions of Moldtranselectro concerning the payment of MDL 189,869,272 to the applicant company, the court argued that that amount represented USD 33,133,404 at the date of supply of the electricity, but not at the date of payment of the MDL 189,869,272. The court held that at the date of payment of the above amount by Moldtranselectro, USD 33,133,404 was worth MDL 210,692,688.
Referring to the amounts indicated by the Prosecutor General's Office in its letter dated 8 June 2004, which served as a basis for the revision of the final judgment of 27 October 1999 (see paragraph 29 above), the court found that those figures were related to a completely different matter and were irrelevant to the case before it.
The Ministry of Finance appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Court of Justice. 34.  On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Ministry's appeal and dismissed the applicant company's action against it. While not contesting the findings of the first-instance court (see paragraph 33 above) and while confirming that electricity was supplied to Moldtranselectro and consumed, inter alia, by state institutions, it made its own calculations directly in USD without converting the amounts to MDL, and came to the conclusion that the entire debt owed by the State to the applicant company had been covered by the payment of MDL 189,869,272 by Moldtranselectro to the former. The Supreme Court also ordered the applicant company to pay the court fees of MDL 600,000. 35.  On 17 March 2005 the Ministry of Finance lodged with the Economic Court of Appeal a request for the return of the MDL 5,291,801 which had been paid in accordance with the judgment of 7 February 2001. The applicant company argued, inter alia, that the request had been lodged out of time and that in any event the amount of MDL 291,801 had never been paid to it, but had instead been paid to a third person (see paragraphs 21 and 24 above). 36.  By a final judgment of 29 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request of the Ministry of Finance. It dismissed the applicant company's submission concerning the time-limit and ignored its submission concerning the MDL 291,801 which had been paid to a third person. 37.  On 19 October 2004, the Prosecutor General's Office, having examined the letter from the Ministry of Finance of 7 June 2004 (see paragraph 28 above) initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant company and against the head of Moldtranselectro on charges of large-scale embezzlement of State property. The Prosecutor General's Office referred to the results of the audit which it had attempted to carry out in August 2004 (see paragraph 29 above) and stated, inter alia, that according to the results of that audit, Oferta Plus had not paid for electricity supplied to state institutions. 38.  On 15 April 2005 the Chief Executive Officer of the applicant company (“C.T.”) was questioned by the Prosecutor General's Office. 39.  On 20 April 2005 the offices of the applicant company were searched and some documents seized. 40.  On 25 October 2005 the criminal proceedings were discontinued. The prosecutor in charge of the criminal case stated in his decision of discontinuation, inter alia, the following:
“According to the evidence obtained during the audit, between 1997 and 2000 Moldtranselectro's debt to Oferta Plus reached MDL 202,644,866...
The materials gathered [during the investigation] and the audit prove the existence of the debt of Moldtranselectro to Oferta Plus for the electricity supplied. The transfers [of MDL 5,000,000 by the Ministry of Finance] to Oferta Plus's accounts were carried out in accordance with court judgments...
Taking into consideration the evidence gathered, [the prosecution concludes] that the acts of Oferta Plus's management do not disclose any signs of the offence [of large-scale embezzlement] or of other offences.” 41.  On 8 December 2005 all the bank accounts of the applicant company were frozen by a bailiff to ensure the restitution of MDL 5,291,801. The company had to make all of its employees redundant, except for C.T. 42.  On 15 February 2006 the Court communicated the present case to the Moldovan Government. 43.  On 26 April 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor General quashed the decision of 25 October 2005. He submitted, inter alia, that on 1 January 2001 Moldtranselectro's debt to the applicant company for the electricity supplied had been MDL 38,454,671. He argued that while Oferta Plus had paid the Ukrainian partner more than MDL 20,000,000 for the electricity supplied to Moldtranselectro, it appeared that the energy for which it had paid had not been supplied exclusively to state institutions. He also noted that Oferta Plus had transferred a part of the debt to third companies in exchange for money and goods. He requested, in particular, that an international fact-finding mission be sent to Ukraine and that the books of the applicant company be seized. 44.  On 11 May 2006 C.T. was declared a suspect in the criminal proceedings. In a decision of the same date, it was reiterated that on 1 January 2001 Moldtranselectro's debt to Oferta Plus for the electricity supplied had been MDL 38,454,671. However, the electricity for which Moldtranselectro owed this amount had not been supplied to state institutions. 45.  On 9 August 2006 a prosecutor issued a decision by which C.T. was officially indicted for misappropriation of MDL 5,000,000 and attempted misappropriation of MDL 15,000,000. The charges against him were based on the fact that the energy supplied to Moldtranselectro, for which the applicant company had paid the Ukrainian private company, had not been consumed by state institutions. The prosecution argued that a Treasury bond could be issued by the Ministry of Finance only for energy supplied to state institutions. Contrary to that provision, Moldtranselectro had asked the Ministry of Finance on 25 March 1998 to issue a Treasury bond in favour of Oferta Plus and such a bond had been issued by the Ministry of Finance on 27 March 1998.
After that, Oferta Plus, in the person of V.L, its former chief executive, making use of the favourable environment created for his company by the illegal actions of Moldtranselectro, and seeking to obtain MDL 20,000,000, had initiated civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance, and in the absence of any proof that electricity had been supplied to state institutions, illegally obtained judgments in its favour.
However V.L. could not fulfil his criminal intention of misappropriating MDL 20 million for reasons beyond his control (he was killed).
The criminal intention to misappropriate MDL 20,000,000 was continued by C.T., the present Chief Executive Officer of Oferta Plus.
Despite the fact that on 23 May 2002 Moldtranselectro owed Oferta Plus only MDL 3,948.49, C.T. had pursued his criminal intention by pressing the Ministry of Finance repeatedly to comply with the judgment of 27 October 1999. As a result, on 26 December 2003 the Ministry of Finance had concluded an agreement with him and later transferred MDL 5,000,000 to Oferta Plus.
Later, C.T. transferred the money to the account of a third company, which also belonged to him, from where it was transferred to his wife's personal account and later withdrawn in cash.
Referring to the reopened proceedings which followed the judgment of the Plenary Supreme Court of 12 July 2004, the prosecutor noted that, despite being well aware that Oferta Plus had not paid for energy supplied to state institutions, C.T. had managed to obtain a judgment in favour of Oferta Plus before the first-instance court. C.T. had presented evidence which, while showing the payment for electricity, did not prove that the electricity had been supplied to state institutions. 46.  Also, on 9 August 2006, according to the applicant company, C.T. was told by the investigating officer, Eugen Bîcu, that no criminal charges against him would have been brought had he contented himself with MDL 5,000,000. 47.  On the same date C.T. was arrested and a request for him to be remanded in custody for thirty days was addressed to the Buiucani District Court. 48.  A detention order for a period of thirty days was issued by the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court on the same day. The judge argued, inter alia, that C.T. had attempted to influence a witness. He relied on a transcript of a telephone conversation of 12 May 2006, which, however, was never disclosed to the defence, despite the latter's requests. 49.  C.T. appealed against the detention order and argued, inter alia, that the criminal proceedings against him had been a form of pressure to persuade Oferta Plus to abandon its application before the Court. He complained that he and his lawyers had not been allowed to see the transcript of the telephone conversation which was the main reason for his detention and insisted that he had not made any attempt to influence any witnesses.
He also argued that he had become the CEO of Oferta Plus only in late 2003 and thus had not even been involved in the transaction between the applicant company and Moldtranselectro and that in any event the electricity had been supplied to Moldtranselectro, which was a State company and held a monopoly on distribution of electricity at that time. The applicant company could not know who were the final consumers of the electricity. 50.  On 15 August 2006 C.T.'s appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal did not give any assessment of the argument concerning C.T.'s lack of access to the transcript of the telephone conversation. 51.  In the meantime, on 14 August 2006, the applicant company's lawyer in the present case applied to the Centre for Fighting Economic Crimes and Corruption (“CFECC”) to visit C.T. He pointed out that he was Oferta Plus's lawyer in the proceedings before the Court and submitted that he needed to see C.T. in order to prepare with him the observations due on 22 August 2006. He asked that the meeting between them take place without a glass partition separating them, since he knew that there was such a partition in the CFECC lawyer-client meeting room. He submitted that both he and C.T. had reason to believe that conversations through the glass partition in the CFECC meeting room were intercepted and that they were convinced that the criminal proceedings against C.T. had been instituted in order to discourage Oferta Plus from pursuing its application before the Court. He argued that their separation by the glass partition, especially in such conditions, would not allow them to speak freely and would seriously hinder his ability to represent the applicant company before the Court. The lawyer further argued that C.T. was not a violent person and that there was no risk that he would attack his lawyer. In any event he, the lawyer, would bear responsibility for any attack. He also declared that he would allow the CFECC representatives to search him, except for the documents he would be carrying, in order to ensure that he had no forbidden objects on his person. 52.  After repeated requests by telephone, on 18 August 2006 the lawyer was finally allowed to see C.T. in the CFECC lawyer-client meeting room, separated by the glass partition. In these circumstances, C.T. refused to discuss any matters relating to pecuniary damage and asked his lawyer to do likewise because the conversation would have related to the whereabouts of the company's accounting documents.
During the conversation with C.T., the lawyer informed him that the charges against him were not consistent with the findings of the civil courts in the civil proceedings between Oferta Plus, the Ministry of Finance and Moldtranselectro. The next working day, on 21 August 2006, the criminal investigator E. Bîcu went to the archives of the Economic Court of Appeal and took the case file in the civil proceedings. The case file was returned to the archives on 4 September 2006. 53.  On 18 August 2006, in the afternoon, the applicant's lawyer telephoned the Government Agent's Office and asked for assistance in seeing C.T. without a glass partition. His request was not successful. 54.  On 21 August 2006 the lawyer telephoned the investigating officer, and asked him for another meeting with C.T. He repeated his request to see C.T. without the glass partition, but this request was again rejected. He was told that the conditions for meetings between lawyers and clients in the CFECC detention centre were not contrary to the law. A meeting between the lawyer and C.T. took place the next day. 55.  On the same day the CFECC made public a press release according to which it had discovered, in the context of the criminal investigation against C.T., an illegal scheme for misappropriation of budgetary funds. A similar item, with images of C.T., was broadcast on the evening news bulletin of Moldovan national television. 56.  On 29 August 2006, the applicant company's lawyer wrote to the Buiucani District Court that he was the representative of Oferta Plus in the proceedings before the Court. He submitted that, since his client believed that the criminal proceedings against C.T. and his subsequent detention served the purpose of discouraging the pursuit of the Oferta Plus v. Moldova application before the Court, on 22 August 2006 a formal complaint under Article 34 of the Convention had been lodged with the Court. He noted that the main piece of evidence relied upon by the courts in placing C.T. in detention was a transcript of a telephone conversation which allegedly proved his attempt to influence a witness. Since C.T.'s defence had not been presented with a copy of that transcript during the pre-trial detention proceedings, he formally requested a copy of it for the purpose of presenting it to the Court in support of the Article 34 complaint. 57.  On 5 September 2006 Mr Gribincea's request was rejected by the Buiucani District Court on the ground that he was not C.T.'s lawyer in the criminal proceedings against him. The court also noted that in any event the materials of the criminal case file were not usually disclosed to the defence unless the criminal investigator decided otherwise. 58.  On 7 September 2006 the investigation was completed in the criminal proceedings and the case was sent for examination on its merits to the Centru District Court. On the same date, C.T. told the applicant company's lawyer that he had been told that he would be convicted before the Court adopted a judgment in the present case. 59.  In a letter of 29 November 2006, the applicant company's representative informed the Court that C.T. had been released from detention on 14 November 2006. 60.  The relevant provisions of the old Code of Civil Procedure, concerning enforcement, read as follows:
Article 338. The issuing of an enforcement warrant
An enforcement warrant shall be issued to the plaintiff by a court, after the judgment has become final...
Article 343. The request for enforcement
The bailiff shall start the enforcement of a judgment upon the request of [one of the parties to the proceedings]...
Article 361. The adjournment of the enforcement
 The bailiff can adjourn the enforcement only at the request of the plaintiff or on the basis of a court order. 61.  The provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure concerning the revision of final judgments read as follows:
 
Article 449
“Grounds for revision
Revision may be requested:
c)  When new and essential facts or circumstances have been discovered that were unknown and could not have been known earlier;”
Article 450
“A revision request may be lodged:
...
c)  within three months from the date on which the person concerned has come to know essential circumstances or facts of the case which were unknown to him/her earlier and which could not have been known to him/her earlier....” 62.  It appears from the photographs submitted by the Government that in the lawyer-client meeting room of the CFECC detention centre the space for detainees is separated from the rest of the room by a door and a window. The window appears to be made of two plates of glass. Both plates have small holes pierced with a drill; however the holes do not coincide, so that nothing can be passed though the window. Moreover, there is a dense green net made either of thin wire or plastic between the glass plates, covering the pierced area of the window. There appears to be no space for documents to be passed between the lawyer and his client. 63.  The domestic courts have ruled on complaints about lack of confidentiality in the CFECC lawyer-client meeting room in the cases of Modârcă (no. 14437/05) and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005. On 2 November 2004 a judge of the Buiucani District Court ordered the CFECC authorities to eliminate the glass partition separating lawyers from their clients; however, the CFECC authorities refused to comply with the court order. On 3 December 2004 the same judge revoked the decision of 2 November 2004, arguing that in the meantime she had been informed by the CFECC authorities that there were no recording devices mounted in the wall separating the lawyers from their clients and that the wall was necessary to ensure the security of the detainees.
On 15 February 2005 Mr Sarban's lawyer complained again to the Buiucani District Court under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he could not confer with his client under conditions of confidentiality. On 16 February the same judge from the Buiucani District Court dismissed the complaint without examining it and referred to her previous decision of 3 December 2004. 64.  Between 1 and 3 December 2004 the Moldovan Bar Association held a strike, refusing to attend any proceedings regarding persons detained in the CFECC detention centre until the administration had agreed to provide lawyers with rooms for confidential meetings with their clients. The demands of the Bar Association were refused (see Sarban, cited above, § 126). 65.  On 26 March 2005 the Moldovan Bar Association held a meeting at which the President of the Bar Association and another lawyer informed the participants that they had taken part, together with representatives of the Ministry of Justice, in a committee of inspection of the CFECC detention centre. During the inspection they had asked that the glass wall be taken down in order to check that there were no listening devices. They had pointed out that it would only be necessary to remove a few screws and proposed that all the expenses linked to the verification be covered by the Bar Association. The CFECC administration had rejected the proposal. 66.  Recommendation Rec (2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 2006 at the 952nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies), in so far as relevant, reads as follows: 23.1 All prisoners are entitled to legal advice, and the prison authorities shall provide them with reasonable facilities for gaining access to such advice. ... 23.4 Consultations and other communications including correspondence about legal matters between prisoners and their legal advisers shall be confidential. ... 23.6 Prisoners shall have access to, or be allowed to keep in their possession, documents relating to their legal proceedings.