will lead to a miscarriage of justice. It can therefore be deduced that the role of the confirming authority is key as it holds the powers to confirm, withhold, or make a referral in the circumstances of each case. The confirming authority is thus in a position of an appellate or reviewing authority over the decision of the court martial. The decision of the court-martial can therefore not be executed without such approval or confirmation by the reviewing authority. Where therefore the authority neither confirms nor approves the decision, the position presents itself as a “no show” which is analogous to what will be referred to under the juris system as a “hung jury”. Consequently, such a decision by the court martial becomes inoperative. See the decision in United States v. Perez (U.S) 579 (1824). See also Logan v. United States, 144 (U.S) 148 (1891). 46.In the instant case, there was no confirmation by the confirming authority to validate the decision of the court martial and no this court has no records to show that the court martial acted within the exemptions under section 150 of the AFA. The failure to confirm the decision of the court martial is therefore tantamount to its rejection without cause. It follows therefore that the judgment of the court martial, which is subject to, and dependent on the confirmation by the confirming authority was improperly executed. The execution of that judgment is thus a violation of the right of liberty of the Plaintiff. 47.In conclusion, we are of the view that though the arrest, and trial of the Applicant were in order, the conviction having not been confirmed as required by the AFA above is null and void. In the absence of any defense by the Respondent, this allegation is well founded. The Court therefore finds that the detention in prison of the Applicant was arbitrary and consequently a violation of his right to liberty contrary to the Section 6 of the African Charter. 18