or misuse - of the jurisdictions is likely to seriously threaten fair, impartial and independent administration of justice”. 22 113. In its jurisprudence, the African Commission also acknowledges the importance of the competence of courts in effectively achieving the right to a fair trial. Thus, focusing on the fact that courts need to be competent to guarantee a fair trial, the Commission defines such competence in the case of Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan as a sensitive concept ”which encompasses facets such as the expertise of the judges and the inherent justice of the laws under which they operate.” 23 114. The Commission therefore considers that the effective exercise of the right to a fair trial - including defence - protected by Article 7 of the African Charter as a whole presupposes that the parties in the trial can each present their case in a fair manner. It further considers that this fairness is severely compromised when certain combined guarantees are not safeguarded: the rights of defence, equality of arms and respect of the adversarial principle. 115. If State Parties have a discretion as to the choice of using means peculiar to their judicial system to meet the requirements of Article 7 of the African Charter, compliance with this provision is determined in the light of the objectives of the Charter, namely taking 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. 24 This is an obligation to produce result, non-compliance with which cannot be justified by any reason whatsoever25 and if the result is not achieved, the State is at fault. It is not enough for the State to prove its passivity in the occurrence of a situation which violates the provisions of Article 7 of the African Charter. 116. The Commission reaffirmed its commitment to guaranteeing such an obligation in its Resolution on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa. The motivations of this Resolution were reinforced by the Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial as reflected in the jurisprudential practice of the Commission, particularly its decision in the case of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan.26 117. With respect, in particular, to the guidelines on the right to a fair trial, they go to confirm how subtle and, perhaps, illusory it can be to make a clear-cut Para 4. Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan Communication 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93 (2000) ARHRL 297 (ACHPR 1999) para 62. 24 Highlighted by the Commission 25 Colozza v. Italy (ECHR, 12 February 1985) Series A No. 89. 26 Communication 222/98-229/99 (2003) AHRLR 144 (ACHPR 2003). 22 23 22