CCPR/C/113/DR/2176/2012 proceedings. On 19 June 2009, the author appealed the Disciplinary Board’s decision. On 16 March 2010, the Disciplinary Board of Appeal confirmed the decision to disbar him. On 9 June 2011, the Court of Cassation dismissed the author’s appeal. The author therefore considers that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. 2.5 The author maintains that the disciplinary proceedings were merely a pretext to disbar him and that the true reason for those proceedings lay in his activities as a human rights campaigner and the jealousy and resentment felt by some of his former colleagues. He adds that his financial situation has become very difficult because he is no longer able to make a living as a lawyer in Belgium. He adds that he has even been forced to go abroad, first to France and then to the United Kingdom, in an unsuccessful attempt to escape from the harassment of members of the Brussels Bar. He further maintains that his many medical problems and the deterioration in his physical and mental condition are directly linked to the anxiety and stress caused by this case.6 The complaint 3.1 The author claims to have been discriminated against by members of the Disciplinary Board of the French Section of the Brussels Bar because of his cultural origins, background, education, values and mother tongue, in violation of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. He explains that, as a member of a multicultural family, he did not want to choose between French and Flemish, as is the rule in Belgium. He therefore first joined the Flemish Section of the Brussels Bar before joining the French Section in 2005 out of a refusal to be labelled as a Flemish lawyer. He contends that he is seen as the black sheep of lawyers because he is different from the other members of the French Section of the Brussels Bar on account of his training and his time as a member of the Flemish Section of the Bar. 3.2 The author further claims to be a victim of “abuse of rights”, in violation of article 5 of the Covenant, because the Disciplinary Board and the Court of Cassation use the rhetoric of human rights to conceal their cynicism and violate all his rights. The author considers that those authorities regularly use the idea of respect for human rights as a licence to do what they want. 3.3 The author claims a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant on the grounds that the disciplinary proceedings against him were not held in public 7 and that they took place in the building housing the executive and representative branches of the Brussels Bar. The author states that the President of the French Section of the Brussels Bar, who instituted the disciplinary proceedings against him, has his office in the same building, thus making it possible for him to control the proceedings. The members of the Disciplinary Board, at both the first hearing and the appeal hearing, were appointed by the President and are lawyers who remain under the disciplinary authority of the President. The author maintains that all the members of the Disciplinary Board should have been automatically disqualified on the grounds that they were his professional opponents and competitors. The author claims that this situation led to a complete blurring of the judicial, executive and representative functions of the Bar, which is incompatible with the independence and impartiality required of a judicial authority. The author also points out that he has been denied an effective remedy to challenge the lack of impartiality of the members of the 6 7 4 The author has submitted to the Committee medical certificates dated 27 November 2012, 5 May 2013, 30 July 2013, 29 August 2013 and 30 July 2014 from various practitioners testifying that the author is suffering from stress and depression. The author states that the very layout of the hearing room and the difficult access to the building deter the public from attending the hearings of the Bar’s Disciplinary Board, which are not, as such, closed to the public. GE.15-08734