and ammunition and the illegal declaration of the independence of Anglophone Cameroon on 30 December 1999. 123. The Respondent States asserts the following: “[a]ware that in the past the actions of SCNC militants have always ended up in assassinations, kidnapping of persons, destruction and setting ablaze of public buildings, public authorities could not remain indifferent in front of this manifest determination to cause disorder and disturbances. About three days before 1 October 2001, gendarmes were dispatched nearly everywhere in the areas and localities targeted by the SCNC.” 124. The Respondent State submitted that some of the victims were released, albeit after prolonged periods of detention, for lack of evidence. Others were released on bail, and fled the country. It argues that the prolonged detention was due to administrative bottlenecks, which are a constant concern of the government. The Respondent State did not indicate the measures it had taken to address the chronic administrative problems causing prolonged detentions. 125. The Respondent State denied that it ignored or failed to implement Court decisions in Anglophone Cameroon. It cited a number court decisions it had complied with, including those which overturned executive decisions. The Complainant did not give any specific case or decision which was not complied with by the Respondent State. 126. The Commission wishes to state that the rights outlined in Article 7 constitute fundamental tenets of any democratic state. It is through respect for these rights that other rights guaranteed by the Charter may also be realised. The Commission has adopted the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, to assist State Parties to better guarantee the rights enshrined in Article 7. 127. The Respondent State did not explain why it transferred individuals from North West Cameroon for trial by the Yaoundé and Bafoussam Military Tribunals, nor the reason why the victims were tried by tribunals outside the jurisdictions where the offences were allegedly committed. The Commission has stated previously that trial by military courts does not per se constitute a violation of the right to be tried by a competent organ. What poses [a] problem is the fact that, very often, the military tribunals are an extension of the executive, rather than the judiciary. Military tribunals are not intended to try civilians. They are established to try military personnel under laws and regulations which govern the military. In communication 218/98Civil Liberties Organisation, Legal Defence Centre, Legal Defence and Assistance Project v. Nigeria the Commission stated the following: “The military tribunals are not negated by the mere fact of being presided over by military officers. The critical factor is whether the process is fair, just and impartial” 14 128. The accused persons were not military personnel. The offences alleged to have been committed were quite capable of being tried by normal courts, within the jurisdictional areas the offences were allegedly committed. The Commission finds that trying civilians by the Yaoundé and the Bafoussam Military Tribunals was a violation of Article 7.1.b of the Charter. 129. The Complaints submit that the accused were tried in a language they did not understand, without the help of interpreters. The Respondent State did not contradict that allegation. The Commission states that it is a prerequisite of the right to a fair trial, for a person to be tried in a language he understands, otherwise the right to defence is clearly hampered. A person put in such a situation cannot adequately prepare his defence, since he would not understand what he is being 15 accused of, nor would he apprehend the legal arguments mounted against him. The aforementioned Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, states that one of the essential elements of a fair hearing is: “…an entitlement to the assistance of an interpreter if he or she cannot understand or speak the 16 language used in or by the judicial body.” 130. The Commission recognises that the Respondent State is a bilingual country. Its institutions including the judiciary can use either French or English. However since not all the citizens are fluent in both languages, it is the State’s duty to make sure that, when a trial is conducted in a language that the accused does not speak, he/she is provided with the assistance of an interpreter. Failing to do that amounts to a violation of the right to a fair trial.