5 DELCOURT v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT end of the hearing in open court, also participated in its private deliberations from which the parties are excluded. This caused a violation of the rights of the defence and, particularly, of the principle of "equality of arms", as it was defined in the opinions given by the Commission in the Ofner, Hopfinger, Pataki and Dunshirn cases (Applications Nos. 524/59, 617/59, 596/59 and 789/60, Yearbook of the Convention, Vol. 6, pp. 696 to 706 and 730 to 732). The Applicant specified that he did not mean, however, to raise the slightest doubt as to the absolute conscientiousness with which the Court of Cassation fulfils its function or to suggest that the Procureur général’s department might attempt unduly to influence the court in any direction other than that of strict justice. In other words, Delcourt was not criticising persons but rather the institution which gave an advantage to the Procureur général’s department. Admittedly, the legislation in issue dated back for more than a century and a half and the Belgian Parliament had decided on two occasions that it did not need to amend it. The legislation, however, dated from a time of absolute monarchy and carried that stamp; furthermore, the incorporation of the Convention into the domestic law of a Contracting State necessarily "kept bringing to light new controversial points which had not been noticed by the national legislature". In his observations of 8th December 1967, almost two years after the lodging of the Application, Delcourt further complained that he had not been able to reply to the submissions of the Procureur général’s department at the Court of Cassation: he had not been informed of this submission before the hearing of 21st June 1965 nor did he have the right to the last word at that hearing. The Applicant applied for the repeal of the legislation under attack and claimed pecuniary damages. 16. On the failure of the attempt made by the Sub-Commission to arrange a friendly settlement, the plenary Commission drew up a Report as required under Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention. This Report was adopted on 1st October 1968 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 5th December 1968. The Commission expressed therein, by seven votes against six, the opinion that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention was not violated in the present case. Two members of the majority expressed a joint concurring opinion and the six members forming the minority expressed their dissent in a joint opinion. 17. After the case was referred to the Court, the Applicant returned to and developed some of his earlier arguments in a document which the Commission appended to its memorial. As regards his main complaint, the Applicant stated that he associated himself with the opinion of the minority of the Commission. Arguments of the Commission and the Government