national organs in a criminal case attracting punishment as severe as the death penalty clearly violates Article 7(1) (a)‟. The African Commission agrees with the Complainants that the fact that the decisions of the Supreme State Security Emergency Courts are not subject to appeal constitutes a de jure procedural irregularity and manifestly violates Article 7(1) (a) of the African Charter. 206. Therefore, the African Commission notes that in all cases, the independence of a court must be judged in relation to the degree of independence of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive. This implies the consideration of the manner in which its members are appointed, the duration of their mandate, the existence of protection against external pressures and the issue of real or perceived independence: as the saying goes „justice must not only be done: it must be seen to be done‟. 207. The African Commission is of the view that the degree of control which the President exercises over the composition, conduct and outcome of proceedings before the State Security Court does not guarantee an independent and impartial judicial process. In its view that amounts to executive interference in the judicial process defeating the intent and purporse of Article 7(1) (d). The African Commission is therefore of the view that the verdict of the Supreme State Security Emergency court did not offer guarantees of independence, impartiality and equity and therefore constitutes a violation of the Article 7 of the African Charter.121 208. In any event, it was the responsibility of the Respondent State to adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the arguments that the court in its composition was independent and was capable of giving an impartial ruling, and this the Respondent State has not done to the satisfaction of the African Commission. In the absence of such rebuttal or facts that could convince the 121 Resolution No ACHPR/Res. 41(XXVI) 99 on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Aid in Africa 63