The Mitterrand doctrine was based on a supposed superiority of French law and its alleged greater adherence to European standards and principles concerning the protection of human rights. This vision entered in crisis, from a legal viewpoint, when the European Court of Human Rights finally ruled against the French procedure "in absentia", often used as a touchstone to consider the Italian procedure as in fault. In a ruling, which breaks down to the root of the French institute, the ECHR decided that the so-called process of "purgation in the absence" – namely the new trial following the arrest of the fugitive – is only a mere procedural device. So the new process can not be comparable to a guarantee for the prisoner, given that in France under Article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the first trial in absentia is held without the presence of lawyers, in explicit violation of the right to defense enshrined in Article 6, paragraph 3 letter c) the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECtHR: Krombach v. France, application no. 29731/96). Following this ruling, France partly amended its default procedure by the 9 March 2004 "Perben II" Act, untenable for European standards on human rights. The current procedure in the absence is defined as "par défaut" and allows for the defense by a lawyer.