CCPR/C/GC/32 Page 8 Expressions of racist attitudes by a jury47 that are tolerated by the tribunal, or a racially biased jury selection are other instances which adversely affect the fairness of the procedure. 26. Article 14 guarantees procedural equality and fairness only and cannot be interpreted as ensuring the absence of error on the part of the competent tribunal.48 It is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to review facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation, in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality.49 The same standard applies to specific instructions to the jury by the judge in a trial by jury.50 27. An important aspect of the fairness of a hearing is its expeditiousness. While the issue of undue delays in criminal proceedings is explicitly addressed in paragraph 3 (c) of article 14, delays in civil proceedings that cannot be justified by the complexity of the case or the behaviour of the parties detract from the principle of a fair hearing enshrined in paragraph 1 of this provision.51 Where such delays are caused by a lack of resources and chronic under-funding, to the extent possible supplementary budgetary resources should be allocated for the administration of justice.52 28. All trials in criminal matters or related to a suit at law must in principle be conducted orally and publicly. The publicity of hearings ensures the transparency of proceedings and thus provides an important safeguard for the interest of the individual and of society at large. Courts must make information regarding the time and venue of the oral hearings available to the public and provide for adequate facilities for the attendance of interested members of the public, within reasonable limits, taking into account, inter alia, the potential interest in the case and the duration of the oral hearing.53 The requirement of a public hearing does not necessarily apply to all appellate proceedings which may take place on the basis of written presentations,54 or to pre-trial decisions made by prosecutors and other public authorities.55 29. Article 14, paragraph 1, acknowledges that courts have the power to exclude all or part of the public for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would be prejudicial to the interests of justice. Apart from such exceptional circumstances, a hearing must be open to the general public, including members of the media, and must not, for See Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, communication No. 3/1991, Narrainen v. Norway, para. 9.3. 48 Communications No. 273/1988, B.d.B. v. The Netherlands, para. 6.3; No. 1097/2002, Martínez Mercader et al v. Spain, para. 6.3. 49 Communication No. 1188/2003, Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany, para. 7.3; No. 886/1999, Bondarenko v. Belarus, para. 9.3; No. 1138/2002, Arenz et al. v. Germany, admissibility decision, para. 8.6. 50 Communication No. 253/1987, Kelly v. Jamaica, para. 5.13; No. 349/1989, Wright v. Jamaica, para. 8.3. 51 Communication No. 203/1986, Mũnoz Hermoza v. Peru, para. 11.3 ; No. 514/1992, Fei v. Colombia, para. 8.4 . 52 See e.g. Concluding observations, Democratic Republic of Congo, CCPR/C/COD/CO/3 (2006), para. 21, Central African Republic, CCPR//C/CAF/CO/2 (2006), para. 16. 53 Communication No. 215/1986, Van Meurs v. The Netherlands, para. 6.2. 54 Communication No. 301/1988, R.M. v. Finland, para. 6.4. 55 Communication No. 819/1998, Kavanagh v. Ireland, para. 10.4. 47