CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013 security clearance to work with secret documents. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before the courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, in which it stated that all trials in criminal matters must in principle be conducted orally and in public, unless the court decides to exclude all or part of the public for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security. Even in cases in which the public is excluded from a trial, the judgement, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, must be made public. The Committee regrets the lack of response by the State party’s authorities to the specific argument raised by the author both at the domestic level and in his communication to the Committee. The Committee therefore considers that the State party failed to justify the exclusion of the public from the author’s trial under one of the justifications laid out in article 14 (1) and, in particular, for reasons of national security. In the absence of other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee further notes the author’s contention that he was not able to consult with a lawyer of his own choosing, that he was not represented by a privately retained lawyer from 30 September 2009 to 27 January 2010 and that the court hearings on 28 and 29 January 2010 took place without the author being present, in spite of his request that the hearings be postponed because of his bad health. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32, according to which accused persons are entitled to be present during their trial and have a right to instruct their lawyer on the conduct of their case. The Committee takes note of the author’s complaints that the authorities hindered his lawyers from fulfilling their task effectively by not providing them with access to the author, violating the confidentiality of attorney-client meetings, searching the personal belongings of the lawyers and prohibiting them from bringing in certain documents. The Committee takes note of the State party’s claim that the privately retained lawyers did not have security clearance to work with “State secrets”. The State party has, however, failed to justify the reasons for refusing security clearance to the author’s lawyers. The State party has also failed to explain why it was necessary to conduct the hearings on 28 and 29 January 2010 without the author being present. In the absence of any other pertinent observations from the State party, the Committee considers that in the present case the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant have been violated. 7.6 Having found a violation of articles 10 (1) and 14 (1) and (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant, the Committee will not examine separately the author’s remaining claims under articles 9 (1) and (3)-(5) and 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 9 (1-2), 10 (1) and 14 (1) and (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant. 9. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to take appropriate steps to: (a) quash the author’s conviction and release him, and, if deemed necessary, conduct a new trial, subject to the principles of fair and public hearings, access to counsel and other procedural safeguards; (b) pending release, provide the author with continuous and effective access to health care in the place of imprisonment; and (c) provide the author with appropriate reparation, including adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future. 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State 12