II - Applicant’s conviction was pronounced in the chamber of the judge 10. The 30 years imprisonment conviction for the armed robbery charge was, as repeatedly alleged by the Applicant, pronounced not "in open court" but "in the chamber of a judge without any reason”. 11. The Respondent State did not refute this allegation. It even confirmed the allegation, somehow. Indeed, in its response Brief, it invoked Article 310 of the Tanzanian Criminal Procedure Code which judgments should be pronounced in public, (paragraph 218 of the judgment). enshrines the principle that subject to certain exceptions 12, The Respondent State went so far as to provide justification for this practice by advancing the argument of "lack of space" and maintaining that "judges’ chambers are used as courtroom", adding that “any person who wanted to be present was allowed to do so." 13. It goes without saying that the argument is specious and indeed misleading. Not only that the reasonable dimensions of a judge’s chamber do not normally allow for the presence of a significant number of people; but, even if the chamber is sufficiently spacious and specially designed to receive the public, a public hearing in a judge’s chamber is in itself intimidating both for the accused and for the public. 14. The Respondent State argues that hearings in judge’s chambers are held only "when the doors are wide open" and that "the cause list of the court is posted in public and is available outside the courtroom"(paragraph 221 of the judgment). 15. By implication, the Court accepts this argument by affirming that "in the opinion of the Court, publicity of a judgment is assured as long as it is rendered in the premises or open area, provided that the public is notified of the place and the latter has free access to the same"(§ 225 of the judgment). The Court goes as far as finding for this curiosity an argument in the Charter which is “silent on the principle of publicity of court decisions pronounced in relation to the right to a fair trial under its Article 7". However, the Court does not fail to note that this principle is indeed enshrined in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights duly ratified by the Respondent State on 16 July 1976. 16, The Human Rights Committee, commenting on Article 14 (1) of the ICCPR states in paragraph 6 of General Comment 13 that “The publicity of hearings is an important safeguard in the interest of the individual and of society at large”. It added however in Article 14, paragraph | that it “acknowledges that courts have the power to exclude all or