Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement Applying this interpretation in the case of Bulut, the European Court found no violation although the Supreme Court used summary proceedings unanimously to refuse consideration of an appeal for lacking merit. The European Court was not satisfied that the grounds of nullity formulated by the applicant “raised questions of fact bearing on the assessment of [his] guilt or innocence that would have necessitated a hearing”.50 Nor did the absence of a public hearing violate article 6(1) in the Axen case, where the German Federal Court had decided to dispense with a hearing since it unanimously considered the appeal on points of law to be ill-founded; before taking its decision it had however “duly sought the views of the parties”.51 The case of Weber The right to a public hearing was however violated in the Weber case concerning breach of confidentiality of judicial investigation, where the President of the Criminal Cassation Division of the Vaud Cantonal Court in Switzerland – and then the Cassation Division itself – gave a judgement without such a hearing. It was not sufficient in this case that the subsequent proceedings in the Federal Court were public, since that Court “could only satisfy itself that there had been no arbitrariness” and was not competent to “determine all the disputed questions of fact and law”.52 3.3.1 The right to a public judgement Article 14(1) in fine of the International Covenant provides that “any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit of law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children”. Article 6(1) of the European Convention stipulates that judgement “shall be pronounced publicly”. Article 8(5) of the American Convention refers only to the publicity of the proceedings as such, while article 7 of the African Charter is silent on both issues. Articles 22(2) and 23(2) of the respective Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia provide for the delivery “in public” of the judgement of the Trial Chamber. Finally, according to article 74(5) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the “decisions or a summary thereof shall be delivered in open court”. As observed by the European Court, the object pursued by article 6(1) with regard to the publicity of judgements is “to ensure scrutiny of the judiciary by the public with a view to safeguarding the right to a fair trial”.53 However, the Court has not adopted a literal interpretation of the words “judgement shall be pronounced publicly” but has instead taken into account, in its case-law, the “long-standing 50 Ibid., para. 42. 51 Eur. Court HR, Case of Axen v. Federal Republic of Germany, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A, No. 72, p. 12, para. 28. 52 Eur. Court HR, Case of Weber v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A, No. 177, p. 20, para. 39. 53 Eur. Court HR, Case of Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A, No. 71, para. 27 at p. 13; emphasis added. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 265