“Accordingly, the institution of the lay jury cannot be called into question in this context. The Contracting States enjoy considerable freedom in the choice of the means calculated to ensure that their judicial systems are in compliance with the requirements of Article 6. The Court’s task is to consider whether the method adopted to that end has led in a given case to results which are compatible with the Convention, while also taking into account the specific circumstances, the nature and the complexity of the case. In short, it must ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole were fair.” 148. For the law to be said to comply with the procedure laid down in an Act, it must be foreseeable contrary to what pertains to the instant case where the whole proceedings were deprived of the appearance of having been conducted on the basis of prescribed rules and procedures. If there were proper rules of procedure the Senate would have been under obligation to abide by those rules and procedures to legitimize the process. The lack of clarity in the rules afforded the Senate unfettered rights to resort to some unorthodox means in the trial of the Applicant which materially impaired the overall fairness of the trial. 149. The overall fairness of the proceedings could not have been guaranteed merely by process of amendment to the Senate Standing Rules (Amended Rule 63) providing for certain safeguards in the abstract. It is necessary to examine whether the operation of the amended Senate Standing Rules in the Applicant’s case had a compensatory effect in practical terms, rendering the entire proceedings fair. In addition, there were several procedural irregularities associated with the trial at the Senate which eroded any guarantee of fairness supposed to have been enjoyed by the Applicant. 61