bodies such as the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights, which have similarly held that special courts with close ties to the executive branch violate provisions requiring an independent and impartial tribunal.43 126. The Complainants state that the competence and procedures of the Supreme State Security Emergency Court, an Exceptional Court, which tried the victims fall far short of the above standards. They also argue that the Supreme State Security Emergency Court was established by the Emergency Law as a temporary court,44 although, like the Emergency Law itself, it has been in force continually since 1981. The Emergency Law gives the court the primary competence of ruling on crimes perpetrated in violation of decrees issued by the President of the Republic in application of the Emergency Law,45 but the President of the Republic may also, at his/her discretion, refer any ordinary crime to the Supreme State Security Emergency Court.46 According to Presidential Decree 1/1981 regarding the referral of some crimes to Emergency State Security Courts, all felonies and misdemeanors against the government‟s security or related to explosives shall be referred to State Security Emergency Courts, established under the Emergency Law. 127. It is further contended by the Complainant that the composition of the Supreme State Security Emergency Court, and the procedure for appointments to it, illustrate the lack of independence. They state that while normally composed of three judges of the Court of Appeal,47 the President of the Republic may order that the Security Court be formed of three judges of 43 Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo et. al. v. Cuba, Case 12.477, I-ACtHR, Report No. 68/06, OAE/Ser.L./V/II.127, doc. 4 rev., paras 117–18 (2006); Incal v. Turkey (Appl. No. 22678/93), ECtHR, Reports 1998-IV, para. 65 (holding that, in establishing whether a special tribunal satisfies requirements of independence, regard must be had as to the manner of appointment of its members, the existence of safeguards against outside pressures, and whether it presents an appearance of independence); Öcalan v. Turkey (App. No. 46221/99), ECtHR, Reports 2005-IV, paras 112–118. 44 See Art. 3b, Emergency Law 45 Id, Art. 7. 46 Id, Art. 9. 47 Id, Art. 7. 34