that closed courts are held only when the victim is a child and the offence the accused has been charged with is for instance rape; and this is to protect the dignity of the child. He further argued that the fact that the chambers are regarded as courtrooms when the doors are wide open is the "Court's practice and we interpret this widely". 222. The Court notes that the Charter is silent on the principle of publicity of court decisions in relation to the right to a fair trial under its Article 7. In contrast, Article 14(1) of the Covenant provides in part that "... any Judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.” 223. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the Parties agree that the judgment should have been delivered in open court, and the fact that, in this case, the judgment of the trial court was pronounced in the chamber of a magistrate. The only issue in contention is whether a hearing held in the chamber of a judge, can be regarded as open court, and if therefore circumstances can be deemed to have been 224. which is entirely open to the public, the judgment delivered in such pronounced in public. In the opinion of the Court, the question as to whether the judgment was delivered in public should be determined with some flexibility and not too formally. As declared by the European Court of Human Rights in the matter of Lorenzetti v. Italy, “the requirement whereby a judgment flexibility2®. must be rendered in public was interpreted with a measure of In the same matter, the Court recalled that “it is necessary to determine in each case in light of the peculiar nature of the relevant procedure and depending on the purport and objective of Article 6 (1), the form of publicity to be given to a judgment as provided under the domestic law ofa particular State.?” publicise judgments should not necessarily take the form of oral pronouncement, 26 Judgment of 10 April 2012, para 37. 27 Ibidem. It holds that “the requirement to See also the jurisprudence cited. 58 and