the ICCPR,721 seven years was held to be unreasonable.722 However, issues relating to children, including child custody, and access,723 for example, need to be tried speedily, as do those involving health and employment.724 122. In criminal proceedings, the time runs from when the person is charged or arrested through to when the court provides its judgment including the finalisation of the appeals process.725 More stringent requirements may apply where the individual is on a serious charge or denied bail.726 For example, a 16 month delay in a murder trial has been considered unreasonable,727 but an 11 month period on heroin trafficking offences was not.728 O. Right to a public hearing 123. As required by Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, Article 13(2) of the Arab Charter, and noted in the UDHR Article 10, this refers to the ability not only of the parties to be present at the hearing but also the public. This is a duty which ‘is not dependent on any request, by the interested party’.729 124. The right of the accused to be present in criminal proceedings is part of the concept of audi alteram partem (‘hear the other side’)730 and includes the right to an oral hearing. Written proceedings will not be sufficient to protect this right during criminal trials.731 125. The right may also apply to the appeal proceedings if it involves questions of fact as well as law.732 126. The Human Rights Committee has held that criminal trials in absentia will only be tolerated when the defendant has been given ample notice, and adequate opportunity, to attend the proceedings.733 721 Communication 441/1990, Casanovas v France, 19 July 1994. Communication 203/1986, Hermoza v Peru, 4 November 1988. See also European Court, Mihajlovic v Croatia, 7 July 2005. 723 Communication 1368/2005, E.B. v New Zealand, 16 March 2007. 724 European Court, X v France, 31 March 1992; Obermeier v Austria, 28 June 1990. 725 General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 35. 726 Communication 899/1999, Francis v Trinidad and Tobago, 25 July 2002, para 5.4. 727 Communication 677/1996, Teesdale v Trinidad and Tobago, UN Doc CCPR/C/74/D/677/1996 (2002), para 9.3. 728 Communication 980/2001, Hussain v Mauritius, UN Doc CCPR/C/77/D/980/2001 (2002), para 6.5. 729 Communication 215/1986, Van Meurs v The Netherlands, UN HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I) p.195 (1989),, para 6.1. 730 Human Rights Committee, Communication 203/1986, Hermoza v Peru, 4 November 1988. See Article 16(3) Arab Charter. 731 Communication 1623/2007, Guerra de la Espriella v Colombia, 18 March 2010, para 9.3. 732 Communication 387/1989, Karttunen v Finland, 23 October 1992, para 7.3. 733 See for example Communication 699/1996, Maleki v Italy, 27 July 1999; Human Rights Committee General Comment No.13, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 135 (2003) para 11. Communication 1173/2003, Benhadj v Algeria, 20 July 2007, para 8.9. Useful guidelines are also provided by the Council of Europe Resolution (75) 11. 722 122