59. Concerning the issue of the right to defence, 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93 Amnesty International et al. / Sudan are clear on this subject. The African Commission held in those communications that: “the right to choose freely one’s counsel is fundamental for the guarantee of a fair trial. To recognise that the court has the right of veto on the choice of a counsel of one’s choice amounts to an unacceptable violation of this right. There should be an objective system of registration of lawyers so that those lawyers so registered are no longer prevented from assisting in given cases. It is essential that the national Bar is an independent organ which regulates the profession of lawyers and that courts do no longer play this role contrary to the right to defense.” 60. Refusing the victims the right to be represented by the lawyer of their choice, Ghazi Suleiman, amounts to a violation of Article t (1) (c) of the African Charter. 61. It is alleged that the military court which tried the victims was neither competent, independent nor impartial insofar as its members were carefully selected by the Head of State. Some members of the court are active military officers. The government did not refute this specific allegation, but just declared that the counsels submitted an appeal to the constitutional court, thus suspending the course of military proceedings. The constitutional court delivered a final judgment, rendering void the decision of the military court against the accused. th 62. In its Resolution on Nigeria (adopted at the 17 session), the African Commission stated that among the serious and massive acts of violation committed in the country, there was ”the restriction of the independence of the court and the establishment of military courts which had no independence nor rules of procedure to try individuals suspected of being opponents of the military regime”. 63. The government confirmed the allegations of the Complainants concerning the membership of the military court. It informed the African Commission in its written submissions that the military court had been established by a Presidential decree and that it was mainly composed of military officers; of the four members, three were active servicemen and that the trial had taken place legally. 64. This composition of the military court alone is evidence of impartiality [sic]. Civilians appearing before and being tried by a military court presided over by active military officers who are still under military regulations violates the fundamental principles of fair trial. Likewise, depriving the court of qualified staff to ensure its impartiality is detrimental to the right to have one’s cause heard by competent organs. 65. In this regard, it is important to recall the general stand of the African Commission on the question of civilians being tried by military courts. In its Resolution on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Aid in Africa, during the adoption of the Dakar Declaration and Recommendations, the African Commission noted that: In many African countries, military courts or specialised criminal courts exist side by side with ordinary courts to hear and determine offences of a purely military nature committed by military staff. In carrying out this responsibility, military courts should respect the norms of a fair trial. They should in no case try civilians. Likewise, military courts should not deal with offences which are under the purview of ordinary courts. 66. Additionally, the African Commission considers that the selection of active military officers to play the role of judges violates the provisions of paragraph 10 of the Fundamental Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary which stipulates that: “Individuals selected to carry out the functions of judges should be persons of integrity and competent, with adequate legal training and qualifications” (see 224/98 Media Rights Agenda / Nigeria). 67. Article 7 (1) (d) of the [African] Charter requires the court to be impartial. Apart from the character of the membership of this military court, its composition alone gives an appearance, if not, the absence of impartiality, and this therefore constitutes a violation of Article 7 (1) (d) of the African Charter.