Commission recalled the general stand of the African Commission on the question of civilians being tried by military courts: “In its Resolution on the right to a fair trial and legal aid in Africa, during the adoption of the Dakar Declaration and Recommendations, the African Commission noted that: ‘In many African countries, military courts or specialised criminal courts exist side by side with ordinary courts to hear and determine offences of a purely military nature committed by military staff. In carrying out this responsibility, military courts should respect the norms of a fair trial. They should in no case try civilians. Likewise, military courts should not deal with offences which are under the purview of ordinary courts.’44 126. The Commission would also like to recall Principle G(c) of the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa: “Military courts should not in any circumstances whatsoever have jurisdiction over civilians.” Civilians having neither military duties nor functions cannot be tried before military courts. The trial of civilians by a military tribunal violates due process and fair trial rights, in particular the individual’s right to a hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.45 127. The Respondent State further argues that such trial is not in violation of Article 7 of the Charter, as it is provided for in Ugandan law. The Commission would like to recall its arguments made in relation to Article 6 in this Communication: the mere fact that a law has been voted by the competent organ in the State does not provide a blanket approval of the law regardless of its effect. Domestic laws must be consistent with the Charter and with States Parties’ international obligations.46 128. In the current case, both Victims are civilians in a State where the remedy of civilian courts are available. Among the twenty (20) others arrested with the Victims, all were civilians, bar one retired Colonel who should therefore be considered as a civilian and a Captain. The Commission therefore fails to see any compelling reason for their trial before the General Court Martial. 129. The Commission finds that the trial of the Victims before the General Court Martial infringed their right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial court under Article 7(1)(b) and (d).  Article 7(1)(c) 130. The Complainants further aver that the General Court Martial lacked the required jurisdiction to try the Victims for the offence of terrorism and the unlawful possession of firearms. The Commission finds that the lack of ratione personae jurisdiction noted above with regards to the trial of the Victims is a fatal mistake to the prosecution of the case before the General Court Martial. It is immaterial whether 44 Communication 222/98, 229/99: Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan (2003) ACHPR para 65 Cantoral Benavides v. Peru (2000) IACtHR (Series C No. 69), para. 112 46 Communication 275/03: Article 19 v Eritrea (2007) ACHPR paras 91,92. 45 23