222. The importance of appeal rights is also reflected in the Commission‟s jurisprudence. In Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan, the Commission held that “the fact that the decisions of the military Court [was] not subject to appeal […] constitute[d] a de jure procedural irregularity.”139 Concerning the right to appeal in death penalty cases, the Commission found that “the foreclosure of any avenue of appeal to competent national organs in a criminal case attracting punishment as severe as the death penalty clearly violates [Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter].”140 223. By denying the victims the right to appeal the decision of the Supreme State Security Emergency Court, the Arab Republic of Egypt has violated Article 7(1) (a) of the African Charter. It should be noted that the imposition of the death penalty is not per se unlawful under the Charter or broader international human rights law. 224. The African Commission therefore concludes that the victims‟ rights under Article 7 (a), (b and (c) of the African Charter including their right to appeal, were violated. 225. The African Commission will now analyse the submissions of the parties on article 4 of the Charter. 226. The Complainants aver that the imposition of the death penalty on the victims by a court, whose composition is illegal and unconstitutional, such as the Supreme State Security Emergency Court, violates the victims‟ right to life and would amount to an arbitrary deprivation of life. 227. The Respondent State argues that trial as well as procedures adopted in this case satisfied the requirement of fair trail as guaranteed by international 139 Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan (Comm. nos. 222/98 and 229/99), at para. 53; see also para. 65. 140 Civil Liberties Organisation, Legal Defence Centre, Legal Defence and Assistance Project v. Nigeria (Comm. No. 218/98), para. 33. See also ibid., para. 34. 69