enormous. In the circumstance of the instant case, can this Court endorse the assertion of the Respondent that the House afforded the Applicant all the essential elements of due process of the law as required by the Section 43 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia in the light of the international human rights standards? The answer is no. 115. This Court, when called upon to make a pronouncement on how fair trial assessment should be approach, held in the case of JUSTICE JOSEPH WOWO V. THE REPUBLIC OF GAMBIA (supra) that: “The contemporary approach to the determination of whether or not a trial has met the requirement of a fair trial must be devoid of piecemeal approach but rather every aspect of the trial ought to be meticulously examined.” Similar approach was followed by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of O’ HARRAN AND FRANCIS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM ECHR (GC) NOS. 15809/02 AND 25624/02 & 53, ECHR 2007; where it held that: “What constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.” So where any restriction is placed on an applicant like in the instant case where the Applicant was not permitted to partake in the proceedings at the House, the issue is as determined by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of ÖCALAN v. TURKEY - 46221/99 – Grand Chamber Judgment [2005] ECHR 282 (12 May 2005) where the Court held that: “The question, in each case, is whether the restriction, in the light of the entirety of the proceedings, has deprived the accused of a fair hearing”. The purport of the above stated authorities is that to reach a verdict on whether a trial was fair or not, the entire procedure governing the trial must be scrutinized to come to a decision and not just one aspect. 46