Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 140. They armed this position by citing the Fair Trial Principles of the African Commission that Military Courts shall be deemed to determine offences of a purely military nature committed by military personnel! and that they -should not try offences which fall within the jurisdiction of regular courts. 126 141. The Complainants also cited the position under the United Nations Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, which states that -the jurisdiction of military tribunals must be restricted solely to specifically military offences committed by military personnel, to the exclusion of human rights violations. 127 In the same vein, they cited the Principle 9 of the Draft Principles on Military Justice adopted by the former UN Human Rights Commission that, "[i]n all circumstances, the jurisdiction of military courts should be set aside in favour of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to conduct inquiries into serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and torture, and to prosecute and try persons accused of such crimes. 128 142. Associating with the facts, the complainant argued that the Egyptian Code of Military Justice gives the military prosecutor and courts an expansive jurisdiction and wide discretion that violates the principles enunciated above. Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Code of Military Justice give the military justice system jurisdiction over complaints against members of the military, especially when the alleged abuses take place in a military institution.P'This jurisdiction is not limited to crimes of a -purely military nature and does not exclude -offences which fall within the jurisdiction of regular courts as required by the Fair Trial Principles. Moreover, under Articles 1 and 48 of the Code of Militanj Justice the only entity that may decide on whether a matter falls within the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system is the military court itself.130 143. Based on the above, the Complainants submitted that the military justice system in the present case did not provide guarantees of impartiality and independence of the judges or the prosecution. It cannot be considered -independent or -appropriatel and the Respondent State is hence in violation of Article 26 of the Charter. 331 P age The African Commission ... Afri<;anf .\ Union' 'I https:/achpr.au.lnVO 0 D