respondents 13% listed the right to appeal in criminal cases as a right that is seldom upheld by the criminal justice system in Pakistan. In Singapore, lawyers face significant challenges when trying to make late-stage appeals. In 2018, new amendments were made to the Criminal Procedure Code that made it harder to re-open cases or challenge findings of the court of appeal. The amendments also introduced personal liability for lawyers and made provisions for personal cost orders in which lawyers can be fined. Lawyers are also required to sign affidavits confirming that they believe their applications have merit before making late-stage applications to re-open criminal cases that have been decided by the appellate court. Singaporean lawyers have expressed concern about these requirements and have said that they seriously impede lawyers from accepting last minute instructions from death row inmates or their families. On 7 November 2022, a new bill “Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases” underwent its first reading in Parliament. This bill introduces further amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. Lawyers argue that this bill establishes more obstacles for lawyers bringing post-appeal applications, and allows courts to find lawyers guilty of “abuse of process” for attempting to apply for late-stage appeals. Adequate Time and Resources ICCPR article 14 requires that defendants have the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with the counsel of their choosing. Lawyers across Asia hold different understandings of what is considered “adequate time”, but there were common concerns at courts refusing to postpone trials and defence counsel being given insufficient time to meet their clients or collect evidence. For example, in Pakistan, JPP found that, at times, courts refused to postpone trials even if the defendant had not yet met with counsel. A UN Human Rights Committee report on Pakistan noted that sometimes the situation is so dire that the lack of adequate time has resulted in counsel being unable to determine which witnesses to call.19 At times the defendant’s lawyer may face difficulties in accessing all the relevant documents due to a culture of bribery prevalent within Pakistan. All the lawyers interviewed for this study identified “access to case files and relevant documents” as a major obstacle in their court cases. The need to bribe court officials is a problem. A majority of interviewees identified accessing experts to provide evidence as an obstacle. In India, the Supreme Court has published guidelines related to legal representation in death penalty cases. Counsel must be given sufficient time to prepare. All 20 lawyers interviewed by Project 39A agreed that they had adequate time to prepare their defence during the conviction stage. However, interviewees also reported that meetings with clients before court hearings would range from 10-25 minutes. Few of the lawyers met with the defendants in prison. 19 ‘Follow Up Report on Pakistan: Under Para. 18, CCPR/C/PAK/CO/1, 120th Session of Human Rights Committee’. Justice Project Pakistan, 2019. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/PAK/INT_CCPR_NGS_PAK_37168_E.pdf. 14