INCAL JUDGMENT OF 9 JUNE 1998 14 regard to the establishment and classification of the facts, the way sentence was determined or the finding of guilt itself. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 34. Mr Incal applied to the Commission on 7 September 1993. He asserted that he had not had a fair trial in the National Security Court, firstly because it could not be regarded as an independent tribunal, and secondly because it had refused to commute his sentence of imprisonment into a fine on account of his political opinions (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14). He also submitted that by rejecting his request for leave to appear and by omitting to send him a copy of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion on his appeal on points of law the Court of Cassation had breached Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b). He further alleged that his conviction for helping to prepare a political leaflet constituted a breach of Articles 9 and 10 and that his temporary disqualification from driving was a degrading punishment contrary to Article 3. 35. On 16 October 1995 the Commission declared inadmissible the complaint relating to the applicant’s disqualification from driving and declared the remainder of the application (no. 22678/93) admissible. In its report of 25 February 1997 (Article 31), it expressed the opinion (a) that there had been a violation of Article 10 (unanimously); (b) that, contrary to Article 6 § 1, the applicant had not had a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (unanimously); (c) that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 (unanimously); (d) that the fact that the applicant had been unable to reply to the public prosecutor’s opinion had breached Article 6 § 1 (twenty-six votes to five); and (e) that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the fact that the applicant had not appeared in the Court of Cassation (twentysix votes to five). The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the partly dissenting opinion contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment1. 1. Note by the Registrar. For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998), but a copy of the Commission’s report is obtainable from the registry.