225. The Commission bears in mind that it had further spelt out the components of fair trial in its soft laws'" and jurisprudence, and that it applies to everyone. These include entitlement to a fair and public hearing by a legally constituted competent, independent and impartial judicial body, in the resolve of any criminal charge against a person, or of a person's rights and obligations'". Also the Commission has stated that access to justice or the court requires that accused persons be brought promptly before the Court'", and that States 'take the necessary measures to facilitate the effective access to justice of women and girls towards putting an end to impunity and ensuring that the perpetrators and accomplices of such acts are prosecuted before the competent courts within a reasonable time'?", 226. In Mr Mamboleo M. Itundamilamba v Democratic Republic of Cong097, the Commission held that States are obligated to take all appropriate measures to ensure that justice is delivered by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal; that justice should be fair and adversarial, and further that non-compliance to this obligation to produce result, cannot be justified by any reason whatsoever and if the result is not achieved, the State is at fault. The Commission also took similar stand in another case brought to itinregard of violation of this right98. . , ' 227. The Commission also recalls its finding in The Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeriai", a case that alleged that the accused and their counsel were constantly harassed and intimidated during the trial, ultimately forcing the withdrawal of the defense counsel, wherein it had concluded that depriving the victims of their right to defense violated Article 7(1) of the African Charter. 228. The Commission considers that the Complainants made several written complaints to the Office of the Inspector General of the Police of the Respondent State, the Minister of land and housing, the Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice, the Head of Public Prosecution in the Central Equatorial State, and in particular the Minister of Interior, who in terms of Article 155(6) of South Sudan's Constitution had the power to among others, ensure that the case was brought to court. 229. The Commission notes the fact that the Complainants' lawyer was arrested in attempt to force him to withdraw from the case, that there were blockages of the legal proceedingsinitiated by the Complainants. It considers especially the fact that the units of the Armed' 'forces who perpetrated the violations enjoy general immunities' as a result of which legal proceedings against them is subject to approval of their superiors, and that the Complainants could .not approach the