the charges could have validly been brought before the General Court Martial with respect to military staff, the General Court Martial is incompetent to try the Victims, independently of the charges. 131. The Complainants further aver that the Victims were on several occasions denied access to their lawyers to prepare their defence. The African Commission in several previous decisions has set out the principle that where allegations of human rights violations go uncontested by the Government concerned, the Commission must decide on the facts provided by the Complainant and treat those facts as given.47 132. Legal representation is regarded as the best means of legal defence against infringements of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This is recognised in various instruments adopted by the Commission. Principle N(1) of the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa provides that ,“The accused has the right to communicate with counsel.” Principle 14(c) of the Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa provides that: “Pre-trial detainees shall have regular and confidential access to lawyers or other legal service providers.” 133. The denial of access to counsel by the Respondent State is a serious violation of the right to defence, opening the door to procedural irregularities and prejudicing the defence of the Victims. The Commission holds that there has been a violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the right to be defended by counsel. 134. The Complainants further aver that the lawyers of the Victims were violently beaten while at the High Court and this fact being undisputed is accepted as true by the Commission. The Commission notes that States have the obligation to ensure that lawyers are able to carry out their profession freely, independently and without fear of bodily or mental harm.48 Where lawyers are intimidated, this has a chilling effect on their ability to defend their clients. This in turn violates the right to defence of the Victim. In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds a violation of the right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 135. More than a violation of the right to defence, the Commission finds that the beating of a lawyer in court while he is undertaking professional duties, is a severe threat to the rule of law. It is now widely accepted that for the rule of law to flourish, judicial independence is necessary. Not only must judges be allowed to decide cases without interference, every judicial actor should be allowed to freely fulfil his role. An independent lawyer allows an impartial judge to reach a reasoned and fair decision in view of the law and facts. The physical assault of a lawyer in the premises of the court is an impermissible attack on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in the State. 47 Communication No. 206/97: Centre For Free Speech v. Nigeria, (1999) ACHPR, para 17. See also, Communications Nos. 59/91, 60/91, 64/91, 87/93 and 101/93 48 Principle I(b) of the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa 24