CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016 violated for the following three reasons: (a) Judge X’s lack of impartiality;20 (b) the fact that they did not have the right to any real means of redress because of an obvious error that had a decisive impact on the case concerning the second sale at auction;21 and (c) the excessive length of the entire procedure.22 The authors acknowledge that article 14 of the Covenant, unlike other instruments for the protection of human rights, does not formally require that civil matters be resolved within a reasonable time. 23 The Committee has nonetheless found this requirement to be part of the right to a fair trial in matters relating to “rights and obligations” in a suit at law.24 3.3 The authors also claim that articles 2 (3) and 14 (1) of the Covenant were violated because they were unable to exercise their right, arising from the right to be heard by a judicial authority, to the enforcement of a court decision. In this case, their right to the enforcement of the Court of Cassation’s ruling of 21 September 2000 was, in the authors’ view, violated, as the Draguignan Office of the Mortgage Registrar, on no legal basis, refused to execute it between July 2001 and August 2003. Exchanges of correspondence between the authors, counsel for the authors and the Office of the Mortgage Registrar show, according to the authors, that administrative procedures were obstructed, conduct that they identify as hidden corruption. 3.4 The authors are also of the opinion that article 2 (3) of the Covenant was violated, as they have not obtained full reparation for all the harm caused by the violation of articles 14 (1) and 17. 3.5 The authors claim that the combination of the alleged violations, including the ultimate loss of their home and their departure therefrom on 15 August 2013, amounts to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.6 The authors are aware that the Committee cannot assess the facts and evidence in a case or the manner in which domestic law should be applied. Where the assessment or application of domestic law has been clearly arbitrary or amounts to a manifest error or a denial of justice, however, the Committee considers itself competent. 3.7 The authors were twice deprived of their sole place of residence as a result of a dispute that was resolved poorly and misjudged by the French courts, in violation of the abovementioned articles of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 17 August 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. 4.2 The State party contends that the authors, despite their claims to the contrary, have never, not even in substance, invoked before the courts the various violations they complain of before the Committee and have therefore not exhausted domestic remedies. 4.3 With regard to the right to a fair trial under article 14 of the Covenant, the authors highlight a lack of impartiality on the part of one of the judges of the Draguignan court, a 20 21 22 23 24 GE.21-01892 Judge X had already intervened four times in the case, but never in favour of the authors. He also rejected the parties’ submissions in an unclear and erroneous manner. Although the Court of Cassation acknowledged that the judge had failed to respect the norms of the adversarial system, it intervened too late (two years later and after the auction) and, for reasons unknown, its decision was not immediately enforced. According to the authors, the Court of Cassation’s decision of 11 July 2013 contained an obvious error constituting a miscarriage of justice. The hearing for the second auction, which was planned for 30 July 2004, was postponed to 24 September 2004 by Crédit foncier de France. However, in French law, the postponement of such hearings, known as possible hearings because they are held only if the debtors request them, results in the seizure’s being declared null and void. The principle of reaching a resolution within a reasonable time was not respected, as the proceedings took 26 years. The period could have been shortened considerably if the Nîmes court had ordered the provisional execution of its judgment of 11 November 1997, as the authors would have been able to pay their debts and the proceedings would have come to an end within a more reasonable time. Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. See Casanovas v. France (CCPR/C/51/D/441/1990). 5