declared that the requirements under Article 6 (of the European Human Rights Convention) have been met because any interested person could consult the full text of the judgments of the Military Court of Cassation”28. (Registry translation) 225. In the opinion of the Court, publicity of a judgment is assured as long as it is rendered in a premises or open area; provided the public is notified of the place and the latter can have free access to the same. 226. In the instant case, it is not indicated that the Judge's chamber in which the hearing took place was not open and accessible to the public, and there is no allegation either, that the public has not been notified and could not freely access the said chamber. The record shows, on the contrary, that the delivery of court decisions in judges’ chambers is a common practice due to insufficient space, and it can therefore be assumed that the public is aware of this practice. 227. Consequently, the Court holds that the fact that the delivery of the Judgment sentencing the Applicant took place in the chamber of a Judge is not, in itself, a violation of his right to a fair trial. IX. 228. THE ISSUE OF REPARATIONS In his Application, the Applicant requested, among other things, that justice be restored in his favor; that his conviction and the sentence meted to him be quashed; that he be set free and that the Court order such other measures as it may deem appropriate. 28 Ibidem. 38. The Court recalls that “in the matter of Ernst v. Belgium (No. 33400/96, judgment 2003), it held that the publicity requirements set forth under Article 6 (1) of the Convention sufficiently complied with due to the fact that the Applicants were able to procure for themselves of the decision by approaching the Registry a few days after delivery of the said judgment in the of 15 July had been the texts Chamber of the Counsel of the Court of Cassation”. It further indicated that in the instant case “the order of the Court of Appeal and the judgment of Court of Cassation had been deposited in the Registry and that the Applicant was notified accordingly’ and that “in view of the jurisprudence mentioned above, the Court holds that the publicity requirements set forth by Article 6 (1) of the Convention have been sufficiently complied with” (Ibidem, para 39). “ Ne & Ca o' On &