CCPR/C/120/D/2435/2014 authorities could not ensure the security of relatives of the defendants. Outside of the courtroom, the relatives of defendants were harassed, insulted and even beaten up (para. 5.3). 8. Such security problems were, in fact, confirmed by the State, when it acknowledged that on 29 September 2010, the officers of the special “Sher” law enforcement unit prevented attacks on defendants from several relatives of the victims (para. 4.6). And that the court hearings had to be postponed to 10 October 2010, to avoid confrontation, because of the angry reaction from the relatives of victims, who tried to attack one of the lawyers for the defendants (para. 4.7). 9. It is thus difficult to understand, in face of such sensitive circumstances, which posed severe difficulties in terms of management of court hearings, and public security, how the majority of the Committee came to conclude that the State party, that is, the trial court, applied a disproportionate restriction on the author’s rights to a fair and public hearing, and therefore on the author’s rights under article 14 (1), by preventing access by the relatives of the author to the court hearings — a decision which, in fact, according to the author himself, the trial court did not take. 10