c. Their judgements must be validated by State courts in light of the guarantees set out in the Covenant; d. They can be challenged by the parties concerned in a procedure meeting the requirements of Article 14 of the Covenant.675 Military Judges 97. The presence of serving military (and for that matter, police) on a tribunal will compromise the independence of that tribunal if those service personnel are appointed by and belong to the military and are subject to military discipline. 98. There are legitimate doubts as to independence because:   The military is subject to the orders of the executive; and Therefore reappointment of the judge is also in the hands of the executive. 99. These concerns cannot be cured by an assurance that no instructions will be given and the members of the tribunal are instructed to act independently from the executive.676 In Ocalan (a case concerning the trial of the leader of the Kurdish resistance movement in Turkey, the PKK) the last minute replacement of a military judge was insufficient to remedy the lack of independence. Courts Martial 100. The key to the compatibility of courts martial with fair trial rights is the appointment process. Crucial to this is the involvement of civilians who are unrelated to the military hierarchy.677 Military Tribunals 101. As far as military or special tribunals are concerned, the Human Rights Committee has held that the basic requirements of Article 14 apply equally to them as they do to ordinary tribunals.678 Of particular importance is that these tribunals satisfy the obligations of independence and impartiality. As the Siracusa Principles state ‘civilians shall normally be tried by the ordinary courts; where it is found strictly necessary to establish military tribunals or special courts to try civilians, their competence, independence and impartiality shall be ensured and the need for them reviewed periodically by the competent authority’.679 102. Such special or military courts can impact on the right to a fair trial in a number of ways including: - Limiting the public nature of the trial; 675 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 24. European Court, Incal v Turkey, 9 June 1998. 677 Cooper v UK, 16 December 2003; Grieves v UK, 16 December 2003. 678 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.13, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 135 (2003). 679 See also Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc.E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex (1985). Concluding observations of the Committee Against Torture: Yemen,CAT/C/CR/31/4. See also Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Egypt, CAT/C/CR/29/4. See also Communication 1033/2001, Singarasa v Sri Lanka, 21 July 2004. 676 117