80 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights Even if the public is excluded from all or part of a hearing, the decision of the court – whether made orally or issued in writing,303 and including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning of the decision – must be made public, unless there are proper reasons to restrict publication of the judgment (See also 9.1.2).304 4.1.1 Necessity and proportionality of exclusion of the press and public Any limitation on the right to a public hearing must pursue a legitimate aim (i.e., it must be necessary, based on one of the grounds of exclusion set out in Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and Article 6(1) of the ECHR), and must be proportional (i.e., it must be proportional as between the legitimate aim being pursued, such as the protection of national security, and the particular means by which that objective is being achieved, such as the exclusion of the public from part of an oral hearing dealing with information the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to national security). This means that the exclusion of the public from a hearing must be strictly required and assessed on a case-by-case basis, having regard – in the case of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights – to an appropriate margin of appreciation.305 In T. v the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights examined the trial of a juvenile defendant accused of the murder of toddler, which generated an extremely high level of press and public interest. The Court challenged the argument in favour of the public attendance at the trial in the general interest of the open administration of justice:306 “In respect of a young child charged with a grave offence attracting high levels of media and public interest, it would be necessary to conduct the hearing in such a way as to reduce as far as possible her/ his feelings of intimidation and inhibition.” In this connection, the Court praised the practice of dealing with children charged with such crimes in special youth courts, from which the general public is excluded and in relation to which there are imposed automatic reporting restrictions on the media.307 In Touron v Uruguay, for example, the applicant complained of the absence of an oral hearing of the merits of the case, as a consequence of there being no provision for a public hearing during the entire process of first instance hearings.308 Because the trial at first instance was, instead, conducted in writing, without any possibility in any circumstance 303 The UN ECOSOC’s Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the ICCPR speaks of potential limitations on the requirement of courts to present “findings announced in open court”: see UN ECOSOC, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex (1985), para 38(a). 304 Reiterated in: UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 29; and UN ECOSOC, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex (1985), para 38(b). 305 UN ECOSOC, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex (1985), para 10; UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 29 (2001), para 4; Ashingdane v the United Kingdom [1985] ECHR 8, para 57; and Kart v Turkey [2009] ECHR 1981, para 79. 306 T. v the United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 170, para 85. 307 T. v the United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 170, paras 28–29. See also on the same case, reference in S. C. v the United Kingdom [2004] ECHR 263, para 30. 308 Touron v Uruguay, HRC Communication 32/1978, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1 (1984), paras 2.2, 5.