CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015 that might fall within its ambit. However, on the facts of the present case, application of the automatic ban on public service for life for persons convicted of offences “affecting State assets” was entirely foreseeable. The Committee emphasizes that the author was convicted of embezzling sufficient public assets to result in a prison sentence of 17.5 years and a fine of approximately € 12,187,765. 7. The Committee also concludes that the automatic application of the constitutional prohibition could yield disproportionate results and that the Supreme Court failed to assess the proportionality of the lifetime ban to the author’s individual circumstances. Nothing in the Committee’s opinion, however, suggests that had the Supreme Court engaged in such an assessment, a lifetime ban on public service would have been disproportionate in the present case. The author was the Minister of Agriculture, a high-ranking government official. He was convicted for large-scale corruption of public funds, totalling millions of dollars, and the crime was based on actions taken while he was in office. He was therefore convicted of an egregious abuse of public trust and theft of public funds, while wielding substantial public power. 8. The Supreme Court was obviously aware of those facts at the time that it applied the ban in this particular case. It also is entirely possible that the Court did assess the proportionality of the ban to the author’s circumstances and concluded that it was proportionate, but did not articulate that rationale given the categorical constitutional provision. However, the State party did not submit that such a proportionality analysis did, in fact, occur, or that the decision of the Supreme Court should be upheld on that basis. 9. In the end, therefore, the Committee essentially finds a violation because the Supreme Court did not formally articulate a finding that the lifetime ban on public service was proportionate in the present case. Such an interpretation is also consistent with the Committee’s conclusion that its Views constitute sufficient remedy for the violation found. Based on this understanding, I concur in the Committee’s decision in the present case. GE.18-22078 17