104. It also emerges from a combined reading of Article 7(1) of the Charter and Article 14(1) of the ICCPR that the public administration of justice is partly safeguarded by the obligation to pronounce all verdicts in public and that failure to comply with this obligation constitutes a violation of international human rights law. This obligation includes cases tried in camera.17 105. In any event, Article 121 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure states “[the judgment] is delivered in a public sitting attended by all the judges who have signed it.” These provisions are to the effect that the Respondent State has incorporated into its domestic law, the right alleged to have been violated by the Applicant in the present case. 106. The Court also notes from the record, that, in Judgment No. 20283 of 15 October 2008 rendered by the Court of First Instance in Ben Arous, it is stated on the cover page that it was delivered in a public plenary session. Judgment No. 22538 of 3 November 2010 rendered by the First Chamber of Ben Arous Court indicated on the fifth page that “publicly deliver the following judgment…”. In Judgment No. 82390 of 8 April 2016 rendered by the Court of Appeal in Tunis, it is indicated on its front page, “in its public session held on Friday 8 April 2016…”. On the other hand, Judgment No. 31528 of 12 March 2013 rendered by the Court of Appeal of Tunis rendered and Judgment No.45501/46360 of 4 December 2017 of the Cassation Court did not indicate that they were delivered in a public hearing or were in open court. 107. The Court observes that the last two judgments mentioned above do not contain evidence that they were delivered in open court, which is a violation of the aforementioned provisions of the Charter as read jointly with those of the ICCPR. 108. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 7(1) of the Charter read 17 Human Rights Committee, 23 August 2007, General Comment 32, p 10, § 29. 24