وإن بات من الثابت أن صاحب البلاغ حصل على حجز لاستخدام قاعة المؤتمرات الصحفية `شارلز لينش` وأن هذا الحجز تعذَّر إنفاذه بسبب القرار الذي اعتمده البرلمان بإجماع أعضائه والقاضي بمنع صاحب البلاغ من دخول حرم البرلمان، فإن اللجنة تلاحظ أن صاحب البلاغ ظل حراً في أن يختار مكاناً آخر يعقد فيه مؤتمره الصحفي.
“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 para. 3.8), thus damaging the equitable hearing of the case.