and freedoms - the right to fair hearing.” This argument is rejected by the Respondent State who submits that trials by military courts do not per se constitute a violation of the right to be tried by a competent organ. To support this affirmation, the Respondent State refers to Civil Liberties Organisation and Others v. Nigeria where the Commission held that that a military tribunal per se is not offensive to the rights in the Charter, nor does it imply an unfair or unjust process.38 The Respondent State further contends that the trial of the Complainants by the military courts is not in violation of their right to fair trial, as it is provided for under Ugandan law. 123. The question before the Commission is thus whether the trial of the Victims before the military courts was in violation of the fair trial rights under Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter? 124. The Commission first finds it necessary to distinguish the Communication referred to by the Respondent State, Civil Liberties Organisation and Others v. Nigeria,39 with the present one. In this Communication the civilian was part of a common conspiracy together with members of the military to overthrow the Nigerian Military Government. Five of those brought before the military court were part of the military, with only one civilian. The Commission found it was reasonable that he be charged with his military co-accused in the same judicial process.40 It is important to note the circumstances present in this particular Communication. The Commission was here dealing with events occurring under a military regime where the authority of the executive and the legislature had been subsumed under military rule. The Commission was, in other words, limited by the circumstances in the state. What the Commission attempted to achieve is the durability and application of the norms prescribed by the Charter, even under a military system.41 The situation in this case recalls the affirmation of the Human Rights Committee that military tribunals may only try civilians in extraordinary, objectively determined and narrowly defined circumstances such as cases where fair, independent and impartial civilian courts are unavailable.42 125. The current case has stronger similarities to Marcel Wetsh’okonda Koso and Others v Democratic Republic of Congo and Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan, where the Commission found that the fact that civilians and soldiers accused of a civilian offence in this instance the theft of drums of diesel were tried by a military court presided over by military officers was a flagrant violation of the above-mentioned requirements of good justice.43 In Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan, the 38 Communication 218/98: Civil Liberties Organisation, Legal Defence Centre and Assistance Project v Nigeria (2001) ACHPR para 44 39 Ibid 40 Id, para 25 41 Id, para 26 42 General Comment 13: “Article 14 (Administration of Justice) Equality before the Courts and the Right to a Fair and Public Hearing by an Independent Court Established by Law,” Human Rights Committee (1984) para 4 43 Communication 281/2003: Marcel Wetsh’okonda Koso and Others v Democratic Republic of Congo (2008) ACHPR para 86 22