Letter 12: Severus tells three presbyters that even obvious matters require both sides to be heard before judgment.

Even when facts seem acknowledged and obvious, neither human legal procedure nor the ordinances of the Holy Spirit allow us to judge on one-sided testimony. For that reason I did not simply approve what Your Devoutness wrote. It was not because I distrust you, but because those entrusted with judgment must preserve the appearance and reality of fair process. The proper course would have been for Your God-loving Reverence to come here. Then we would have summoned the other side as well, and the truth could have been determined. If they refused to come after being summoned, the laws concerning absentees would have been clear and would have taken effect. I do not want the matter ignored or left unsettled. If the saintly Isidore, bishop of Chalcis, had been present, I would have left judgment about the places and persons under his authority to him. Since he is absent, I must lay down a just conclusion myself about the questions that have been stirred up.

Even in the case of things that are acknowledged and manifest we are not justified either by the form of human laws or by the ordinances of the Holy Spirit in judging on the statement of one side. Wherefore neither did we consent to agree to the things that were written by your devoutness; not because we do not believe you, but to preserve the appearance that befits those who have been entrusted with the task of judging such matters. The right and proper course would have been for your love of God to come as far as here: and then we would have summoned the other side also to come to us, and the truth would have been determined. Or, if they remained away and did not come when summoned, then the provisions laid down in the laws regarding those who remain away would have been plain and would have followed upon the act. For our own desire is not to leave the matter unheeded and unsettled. If the saintly Isidore, bishop of the city of the men of Chalcis, had been present, we would have yielded to him the duty of giving judgment concerning places and persons in his jurisdiction. But, as he is absent, it is therefore absolutely necessary that we should ourselves, as I have said, lay down a just conclusion of the questions that have been stirred.