127. For civil proceedings, Article 14(1) ICCPR ‘may’ necessitate the presence of the individual.734 However, if one party is present, so should the other.735 128. Merely by absconding, a defendant does not necessarily waive his rights to a fair trial, permanently. Before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under the right to a fair trial, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be. Minimum safeguards must therefore be guaranteed. 129. The right also includes the right of the public to access the hearings. This requires that all hearings on the merits, although not necessarily pre-trial hearings or those on appeal,736 should be oral and in public.737 130. This right is a qualified right which can be limited in the interests of the protection of morals, public order, national security, the interest of the private lives of the parties, or in the interests of justice.738 This must be in order to respond to a pressing or social need, pursue a legitimate aim, be necessary and proportionate.739 131. The decision must be made public unless reasons can be shown otherwise.740 This may include, according to the Siracusa Principles, for example, where there are ‘specific findings announced in open court showing that the interest of the private lives of the parties or their families or of juveniles so requires; or the exclusion is strictly necessary to avoid publicity prejudicial to the fairness of the trial or endangering public morals, public order (ordre public), or national security in a democratic society.741 132. The duty to provide a public hearing may also be violated if, for example, the time and venue is not made known to the public, 742 or facilities are not provided to enable the public to attend. This includes, for instances, ensuring there is a large enough room for the hearing if there is public interest in the case.743 The obligation also requires that the State ensure that certain 734 Communication 767/1997,Said v Norway, 26 April 2000. Communication 779/1997, Äärelä and Näkkäläjärvi v Finland, UN 24 October 2001. 736 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 28. Communication 301/1988, RM v Finland, UN Doc.CCPR/C/35/D/301/1989, para 6.4; and Communication 819/1998, Kavanagh v Ireland, UN Doc.CCPR/C/71/D/819/1998, 2001, para 10.4. 737 General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 28. 738 Ibid para 29; Communication 80/1980, Vasilskis v Uruguay, UN Doc.CCPR/C/18/D/80/1980, 1983, para 11. 739 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.29, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (2001) para 4. Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the ICCPR, E/CN.4/1985/4, annex, para 10. 740 General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 29. 741 General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the ICCPR, E/CN.4/1985/4, annex, para 38(b). 742 Communication 215/1986, Van Meurs v The Netherlands, UN HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I) p.195 (1989), para 6.2. 743 Ibid. Communication 1502/2006, Marinich v Belarus, 16 July 2010, para 10.5. 735 123