With regard to article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee notes the absence of any reply from the State party and also notes, on the one hand, that the authors did not benefit from the guarantees to which they were entitled in their capacity as judges and by virtue of which they should have been brought before the Supreme Council of the Judiciary in accordance with the law, and on the other hand, that the President of the Supreme Court had publicly, before the case had been heard, supported the dismissals that had taken place (see paragraph 3.8) thus damaging the equitable hearing of the case.
En ce qui concerne l'article 14§1, le Comité constate l'absence de réponse de l'Etat partie et relève, d'une part, que les auteurs n'ont pas bénéficié des garanties attachées à leurs fonctions de magistrats en vertu desquels ils auraient dû être traduits devant le Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature conformément à la loi, et que d'autre part, le Président de la Cour Suprême a publiquement, avant le procès, apporté son soutien aux révocations intervenues (voir §3.8) portant ainsi atteinte au caractère équitable de celui-ci.