liabilities for illicit behavior, taking into account that the legal framework shall provide juridical certainty to its citizens.” 144. Also, in the case of ALTUĞ TANER AKÇAM V. TURKEY 27520/07 | JUDGMENT (MERITS AND JUST SATISFACTION) | COURT (SECOND SECTION) | 25/10/2011, the Court held: “The Court reiterates that the relevant national law must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the persons concerned – if need be with appropriate legal advice – to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail”. 145. The allegations of irregularities catalogued by the Applicant which were not controverted by the Respondent are very worrying and the Court takes them seriously. The following were the arguments of the Respondent’s Counsel and the remarks of the Presiding Judge when the Applicant raised the issue of irregularities: at paragraph 5.17 of the statement of defence, the Respondent stated “Further, an impeachment case consisting of a full trial resulting in conviction and removal of office is novel in Liberia and as such there is no precedent to follow”. Again, in respect of the irregularities in the manner the jurors conducted themselves, Counsel argues that “These were mere perfunctory guidelines which supported and buttressed rules promulgated by the senate”. When the Presiding Judge was to rule on the Applicant’s concerns, he is on record as contained in EXHIBIT DF/5, the judgement of the Senate trial, to have stated at page 4, closing part of the first paragraph, as follows: “We said consistently that at this impeachment trial, the rules regarding what jurors do or don’t do are relaxed. This is why senators were not kept together so that they will not meager with the public 59