198. Applying these fair trial principles to special tribunals, the African Commission has held that they “violate Article 7(1) (d) of the African Charter because their composition is at the discretion of the executive branch. 199. The victims were tried before the Supreme State Security Emergency Court, whose competence and procedures fall far short of the above standards. The Supreme State Security Emergency Court is an exceptional court. It was established by the Emergency Law as a temporary court,113 although, like the Emergency Law itself, it has been in force continually since 1981. The Emergency Law gives the Court the primary competence of ruling on crimes perpetrated in violation of decrees issued by the President of the Republic in application of the Emergency Law,114 but the President of the Republic may also, at his discretion, refer any ordinary crime to the Supreme State Security Emergency Court.115 According to Presidential Decree 1/1981 regarding the referral of some crimes to Emergency State Security Courts, all felonies and misdemeanours against the Government‟s security or related to explosives shall be referred to the State Security Emergency Courts, established under the Emergency Law. 200. In view of the above, the African Commission is of the view that the degree of control which the President of the Republic exercises over the composition, conduct and outcome of proceedings before the State Security Court is antithetical to the notion of an independent and impartial judicial process. The law itself provides, for example, for the President to exercise the following powers: 112 Ibid., Sections (A)(4)(e) and (g) and (A)(5)(a). 113 See Art. 3b, Emergency Law (above, n. 114 See ibid., Art. 7. 115 See ibid., Art. 9. 60