215. In his written submissions annexed to the Application, the Applicant maintained that the records show that the Judgment was read in an office on 21 July 1998, instead of being delivered in open court. 216. In his Reply, the Applicant reiterated this position. 217. At the Public Hearing, Counsel for the Applicant again argued that at the District Court, decision was taken in the chambers of a Judge and that no reason for that was given in the said decision. 218. In its Response, the Respondent State refutes this allegation and argues that if Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that Judgments shall be delivered in public, the same Section also makes provisions for options. 219. The Respondent State further argues that due to limitation of space, the Chambers of Judges are used as courtrooms, whereby the public can be present during oral pleadings and delivery of Judgments. It also maintains that the case against the Applicant was neither heard in camera, nor was the Judgment delivered in camera, because anyone who wanted to be present on the two occasions was allowed to do so. 220. At the Public Hearing, the Respondent because of the problem of space, State’s representative again explains that offices are used during procedures; and that the Applicant was not tried in camera given the fact that anyone who wanted to participate in the proceedings could do so. 221. The Respondent State’s representative further explains that when the chambers used, Public Hearings are held only when the doors are wide are open and that any member of the public can access and sit in; it is only under these conditions that the Court may sit as an open court; the cause list of the Court is posted in public outside the 57 Courts; and (G 8 >