or if the tribunal reserves the right to bar certain advocates from court. The right to freely choose one’s counsel is essential to the assurance of a fair trial. To give the tribunal the power to veto the choice of counsel of defendants is an unacceptable infringement of this right. There should be an objective system for licensing advocates, so that qualified advocates cannot be barred from appearing in particular cases. It is essential that the national bar be an independent body which regulates legal practitioners, and that the tribunals themselves not adopt this role, which will infringe the right to defence. th 65. The communications allege that the 28 army officers executed on 24 April 1990 were allowed no legal representation. The government states that its national legislation permits the accused to be assisted in his defence during the trial by a legal advisor or any other person of his choice. While before the Special Courts, the accused has the right to be defended by a friend to be approved by the Court. The government argues that the court procedures were strictly followed in the case of these officers. 66. While there is a simple contradiction of testimony between the government and the Complainant, the Commission must admit that in the case of the 28 executed army officers basic standards of fair trial have not been met. Indeed, the Sudanese government has not given the Commission any convincing reply as to the fair nature of the cases that resulted in the execution of the 28 officers. It is not sufficient for the government to state that these executions were carried out in conformity with its legislation. The government should provide proof that its laws are in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter, and that in the conduct of the trials the accused’s right to defence was scrupulously respected. In this case, the very fact that the accused’s choice is subject to the assent of the Court before which he is to appear constitutes a violation of the right to be represented by counsel of one’s choice, as provided for in Article 7 of the African Charter, cited above. 67. Article 7 is closely related to Article 26 of the Charter, which provides that: States parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the courts... 68. The government confirms the situation alleged by the Complainants in respect of the composition of the Special Courts. National legislation permits the President, his deputies and senior military officers to appoint these courts to consist of "three military officers or any other persons of integrity and competence". The composition alone creates the impression, or indicates the reality, of lack of impartiality, and as a consequence, violates Article 7.1.d The government has a duty to provide the structures necessary for the exercise of this right. By providing for courts whose impartiality is not guaranteed, it has violated Article 26. 69. The government does not contest the allegation of dismissal of over one hundred judges who were opposed to the formation of special courts and military tribunals. To deprive courts of the personnel qualified to ensure that they operate impartially thus denies the right to individuals to have their case heard by such bodies. Such actions by the government against the judiciary constitute violations of Articles 7(1)(d) and 26 of the Charter. 70. The government provided no contrary element in refutation of the allegations made against it, and the laws that it cites are deficient. Accordingly the Commission holds a violation of Article 7.1.c. 71. Article 8 of the Charter reads: Freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion shall be guaranteed. No one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms. 72. These issues should be considered in relation to Article 2 of the Charter, which provides for equal protection under the laws, and Article 8, on religious freedom, which will be treated below. While fully respecting the religious freedom of Muslims in Sudan, the Commission cannot countenance the application of law in such a way as to cause discrimination and distress to others. 73. Another matter is the application of Shari'a law. There is no controversy as to Shari'a being based upon the interpretation of Islam, the Muslim religion. When Sudanese tribunals apply Shari'a, they must do so in accordance with the other obligations undertaken by the State of Sudan. Trials must always accord with international fair-trial standards. Also, it is fundamentally unjust that religious laws should be applied against non-adherents of the religion. Tribunals that apply onlyShari'a are thus not