analogous with the concept of access to appropriate justice and requires that one's cause be heard by efficient and impartial courts.”106 297. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and IHRDA v. Zimbabwe, the Commission held that “[i]t is a vital requirement in a state governed by law that court decisions be respected by the State, as well as individuals. The courts need the trust of the people in order to maintain their authority and legitimacy. The credibility of the courts must not be weakened by the perception that courts can be influenced by any external pressure.”107 The Commission found that by refusing to comply with court orders, the Respondent State undermined the independence of the courts, in violation of Article 26 of the Charter.108 298. In its analysis under Article 6, the Commission has already found that the Victim’s detention was not under the effective control of a judicial authority, as the Minister of Interior was able to circumvent the release orders issued by the courts. The Commission therefore finds that the Respondent State failed to execute court orders and undermined the independence of courts, in violation of Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter. Lack of independence of State Security Emergency Courts 299. The Complainants aver that the lack of independence of the State Security Emergency Courts is systematic, highlighting the composition of and the procedure of appointment to the Court. The Complainants further highlight the powers of the President over the cases submitted to and the decisions reached by the Court in violation of Article 26. 300. The Complainants allege that the Commission has previously assessed these courts in Communication 334/06 - Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v. Egypt, and described them in the following terms: “The victims were tried before the Supreme State Security Emergency Court, whose competence and procedures fall far short of the above standards [the Commission’s Principles and Guidelines on Fair Trial].109 In the said Communication, the Commission found that “[it] is of the view that the degree of control which the President of the Republic exercises over the composition, conduct and outcome of proceedings before the State Security Court is antithetical to the notion of an independent and impartial judicial process.”110 301. The Commission finds it unnecessary to pronounce itself again on the independence or not of the State Security Emergency Courts in the Respondent State, in view of its above-referenced decision. Moreover, in the above paragraphs, the Commission has already found that by failing to execute the EIPR and Interights v. Egypt (n 38 above), para 195. Communication 294/04 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and IHRDA v. Zimbabwe (2009) ACHPR para 119. 108 As above, para 120. 109 EIPR and Interights v. Egypt (n 38 above), para 199. 110 As above, para 200. 106 107 49