where a certain number of elements combined together have not been respected viz. the right to equality of means and the need for dissenting views. The requirements of a fair trial also presupposes that the courts are able to allow persons subject to trial to review the ruling passed. The principle of a two-tier court system is recognised by all. In the present case, there is a discriminatory justice system in the same that Article 5 applies differently depending on the persons concerned. 83. In the present case, the Military Court was established by a decree-law in accordance with Article 156(2) of the Constitution of Congo which authorises the President of the Republic to suspend the Common Law courts and replace them with Military Tribunals, in times of war. Its competence includes knowing of the deeds of civilians. 84. Regarding such situations, the Commission already stated several times its Resolution No ACHPR/Res.41(XXVI)99 on the right to a fair trial. In the Forum of Conscience v. Sierra Leone case, for instance, the Commission quoted the preceding Resolution as follows: “In many African countries, Military Tribunals and Special Courts co-exist with ordinary legal institutions. The objective of the military tribunals is to adjudicate on offences of a purely military nature perpetrated by military personnel. In the dispatch of these duties, the military tribunals should abide by the norms governing a fair trial”. 85. Consequently, in this particular case, the fact that civilians and soldiers accused of civilian offences are tried by a Military Court presided over by military officers for the theft of drums of gas oil is a flagrant violation of the above-mentioned requirements of good justice. 86. Furthermore, in its ruling on the Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria case, the Commission decided as follows: [quote]“the appearance, sentencing and conviction of Malaolu, a civilian, by a special military court, presided over by military officers in active duty is nothing short of a violation of the fundamental tenets of free trial as stipulated under Article 7 of the Charter.”[quote] 87. Consequently, in the present case, the trial of both civilian and militaries [sic] by a military tribunal presided over by a military officer on matters of a civilian nature constitutes an infringement of the requirements of fair justice as mentioned earlier. 88. The Respondent State does not challenge these arguments in its statement of defence. In the absence of any facts to the contrary, the Commission cannot invalidate the submission by the Complainants regarding the inexistence of a fair justice system. 89. The Commission therefore finds that the verdict of the Military Court which consisted solely of Army Officers with no qualities of a Magistrate, did not offer the guarantees of independence, impartiality and equity and constitutes a violation of its Resolution No ACHPR/Res.41(XXVI)99 on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Aid in Africa. 90. The Complainants allege that the verdict of the military court against the plaintiffs was not reasoned and that to compound matters, the authorities refused to serve them with a copy of the judgement. The Respondent State begs to differ and avers that the Complainant has no proof to back this allegation. In this case, the burden of proof is on the Defendant to show that the allegations of the Complainants are unfounded by providing the Commission with the said judgement, which proof is yet to be provided. The Commission has always deplored lack or inadequacy of motives for legal decisions as a violation of the right to a fair trial. In the judgement on the Pinkey v Canada case, the Human Rights Committee ruled: “the exercise of an appellant’s right of appeal had been prejudiced because the transcript of the lower court’s proceedings had taken two-and-a-half years to be produced.” 91. It is important to note that the Complainants skew the doctrinal meaning of the expression “effective redress”. This expression “effective redress” is clearly referred to in Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. “Redress”should not be considered as “the process whereby a new decision is obtained in a dispute where an authority has already given a ruling. The word redress shall comprise of all processes through which a constitutive act or an alleged violation of the Convention is brought before a qualified body to seek, as the case maybe, suspension of the act, 13 its annulment, amendment or compensation”. It is the case in the present communication, even though it is happening at the African regional level. 92. In addition, the Complainants recall that they could not exhaust adequate local remedies as already dealt with at the admissibility stage.