Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement The Committee has however observed that “the judge’s instructions to the jury must meet particularly high standards as to their thoroughness and impartiality in cases in which a capital sentence may be pronounced on the accused”, and that “this applies, a fortiori, to cases in which the accused pleads legitimate self-defence”.33 In most cases the Committee has found no evidence that the trial judge’s instructions were arbitrary to the extent of amounting to a denial of justice,34 in particular when it appears clear that “the trial judge put the respective versions of the prosecution and the defence fully and fairly to the jury”.35 However, in the case of Wright, who was convicted and sentenced to death for murder, the judge’s omission was so serious as to amount to a denial of justice contrary to article 14(1) of the Covenant. In this case, a post-mortem showed that the shot from which the victim died had in fact been fired at a time when the author was already in police custody; this expert conclusion was not challenged and was available to the court.36 Given “the seriousness of its implications”, the Committee was of the view that the Court should have brought this information “to the attention of the jury, even though it was not mentioned by counsel”.37 In trials by jury, the judge’s instruction to the jury must be impartial and fair in that both the case of the prosecutor and that of the defence must be presented in such a way as to ensure the right to a fair hearing, which must be free from arbitrariness. A violation of this essential duty amounts to a denial of justice. 3.3 The right to a public hearing The right to a public hearing in both civil and criminal cases is expressly guaranteed both by article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and by article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, although the press and public “may be excluded from all or part of” a trial for certain specified reasons, namely, in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, in the interest of the parties’ private lives, or where the interest of justice otherwise so requires. To this the European Convention also specifically adds “the interest of juveniles” as a ground for holding court proceedings in camera. Article 8(5) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides this right only with regard to criminal proceedings, which “shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect the interests of justice”. Rule 79(A) in the identical versions of the Rules of 33 Communication No. 232/1987, D. Pinto v. Trinidad and Tobago (Views adopted on 20 July 1990), in UN doc. GAOR A/45/40 (vol. II), p. 73, para. 12.3. 34 See e.g. ibid., loc. cit. and Communication No. 283/1988, A. Little v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 1 November 1991), in UN doc. GAOR, A/47/40, p. 282, para. 8.2. 35 Communication No. 232/1987, D. Pinto v. Trinidad and Tobago (Views adopted on 20 July 1990), in UN doc. GAOR A/45/40 (vol. II), p. 73, para. 12.4. 36 Communication No. 349/1989, C. Wright v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 27 July 1992), in UN doc. GAOR, A/47/40, p. 315, para. 8.3. 37 Ibid., loc. cit. 262 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers