9. Having found that the Applicant’s sentencing and conviction was not done in open court, the Court would have found a violation of his rights to fair trial.and in the circumstance find a violation of Article 7 and Article 14(1) of the ICCPR. The majority Judgment has relied on Lorenzetti v. Italy where the ECtHR held that, “the requirement whereby a judgment must be rendered in public was interpreted with a measure of flexibility’*. The majority Judgment. has found that the lack of adequate courtrooms is reason enough for flexibility. In my opinion, the totality of the prevailing conditions in the judicial process must be examined to determine whether such flexibility can be allowed. This would be appropriate where a judgment can be accessed immediately, despite it not having been rendered in open court. 10. This is not the case in the local circumstances of this matter as judgments are not immediately available to parties and the public, therefore the most appropriate means by which they would access the judgment would be when it is being rendered in open court®. In the instant case, since in ail likelihood, as is common, the judgment would not be immediately accessible to the Applicant and it was not read in open court, a violation of Article 7 of the Charter was occasioned. 11. On the specific issue as to the Order of the Applicant's release, the Court is of the opinion and | entirely agree, that an Order of release of a convict can only be done in “very specific and/or compelling circumstances”. The Court, however goes further to say that the Applicant has not shown exceptional circumstances, and also that the fact that the conviction and sentence was not delivered in open court did not constitute a violation of Article 7 of the Charter by the Respondent. This is where | depart with the majority Judgment. 12. In spite of the fact that the Applicant does not state that particular facts exhibit exceptional circumstance, | am of the firm view that the Court found such specific and/or compelling circumstances when it noted that the resumption of the trial or retrial of the Applicant would not be “fair to the Applicant in as much as he has already spent 19 years in prison, more than half of the sentence, and given that a fresh local judicial procedure could be long”. 4 Judgment of 10 April 2042, para 37 5 Application No. 005/2013, Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania, Judgment of 20 November 2015 paras 108 and 109 ow 3