public hearing, the State party contends that the right to an oral hearing is not encompassed by article 14, paragraph 1, and that this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. Complaint 3.1 The author contends that he was denied a fair hearing both by the Rääkkyla District Court and the Court of Appeal, in violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Committee’s decision on admissibility 3.2 The author claims that the proceedings before the Rääkkyla District Court were not impartial, since the two lay judges, V. S. and T. R., should have been disqualified from the consideration of his case. In particular, he claims that the remark of V. S. during the testimony of Mrs. Karttunen, amounts to a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. In this context, he argues that while Section 13, paragraph 1, of the Code of Judicial Procedure provides that a judge cannot sit in court if he was previously involved in the case, it does not distinguish between career and lay judges. If the court is composed of only five lay judges, as in his case, two lay judges can considerably influence the court’s verdict, as every lay judge has one vote. The author further contends that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that (a) one of the lay judges, T. R., was not disqualified to consider the case, and (b) the failure of the District Court to disqualify the other lay judge because of conflict of interest had no effect on the outcome of the proceedings. 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 During its forty-third session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. While noting the State party’s contention that the communication was inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, it observed that the material placed before it by the author in respect of alleged irregularities in the judicial proceedings raised issues that should be examined on the merits, and that the author had made reasonable efforts to substantiate his claims, for purposes of admissibility. 5.3 On 14 October 1991, the Committee declared the communication admissible in respect of article 14 of the Covenant. It requested the State party to clarify, in particular: (a) how Finnish law guarantees the impartiality of tribunals and how these guarantees were applied in the instant case, and (b) how domestic law safeguards the public nature of proceedings, and whether the procedure before the Court of Appeal could be considered to have been public. 3.3 Finally, the author asserts that article 14, paragraph 1, was violated because the Court of Appeal refused to examine the appeal in a public hearing, despite his formal requests. This allegedly prevented him from submitting evidence to the court and from having witnesses heard on his behalf. State party’s information and observations State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 The State party concedes that the author has exhausted available domestic remedies but argues that the communication is inadmissible on the basis of article 3 of the Optional Protocol. In respect of the contention that the proceedings in the case were unfair because of the alleged partiality of two lay judges, it recalls the Court of Appeal’s findings (see para. 3.2) and concludes that since the career judge in practice determines the court’s judgement, the outcome of the proceedings before the Rääkkyla District Court was not affected by the participation of a judge who could have been disqualified. 6.1 In its submission on the merits, the State party observes that the impartiality of Finnish courts is guaranteed in particular through the regulations governing the disqualification of judges (Chapter 13, Section 1, of the Code of Judicial Procedure). These provisions enumerate the reasons leading to the disqualification of a judge, which apply to all court instances; furthermore, Section 9 of the District Court Lay Boards Act (No. 322/69) provides that the disqualification of district court lay judges is governed by the regulations on disqualification of judges. These rules suffer no exception: no one who meets any of the disqualification criteria may sit as judge in a case. The Court must, 4.2 Concerning the author’s contention that the Court of Appeal denied him his right to a 109