- Excluding the accused or lawyer from the courtroom;680 Restricting the rights of individuals to communicate with their lawyers.681 103. The Human Rights Committee, in noting the existence in certain countries of military tribunals that try civilians, has pointed out that ‘the trying of civilians by such courts should be very exceptional and ‘limited to cases where the State Party can show that resorting to such trials is necessary and justified by objective and serious reasons, and where with regard to the specific class of individuals and offences at issue the regular civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials’.682 104. However, the Human Rights Committee has not hesitated to say that civilians should not be tried by military courts,683 a view increasingly shared by other human rights bodies.684 105. During such military tribunal proceedings, allegations of violations of the rights of the accused should be able to be considered by the judges at any stage. 685 106. Military tribunals responsible for determining the legality of conduct in the context of armed conflict are governed by principles of humanitarian law, or the laws of war, most notably the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols, as well as customary international law.686 Amongst other things, these provide for battlefield hearings to resolve doubts about the legal status of detainees captured by the military in combat. 107. Under these circumstances the laws governing wars will be the primary basis upon which to proceed. However, that does not mean human rights law plays no role or is silent during the process. 108. Military tribunals, even within the midst of an armed conflict, must still guarantee certain minimum safeguards in relation to a fair trial. These include ensuring:    The impartiality of the tribunal; That the detainee has an opportunity to contest the factual basis for his/her detention; That the detainee is given the reasons for his/her detention; 680 Human Rights Committee, Communications No.468/1991, Oló Baramunde v Equatorial Guinea, 20 October 1993, para 9.4; No.1298/2004, Becerra Barney v Colombia, 11 July 2006, para 7.2. 681 Communications 577/1994, Polay Campos v Peru, 6 November 1997, Carranza Alegre v Peru, para 7.5. 682 General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 22. Kurbanov v Tajikistan, Communications 1152/2003 and 1190/2003, 31 October 2005, para 6.3. 683 Concluding Observations Slovakia, CCPR/C/79/Add.79 (1997), para 20. 684 See, e.g. European Court, Ergin v Turkey, [2006] ECHR 529, para 45. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, E/CN.4.2004/3, para 67. See also Civil and Political Rights including the questions of independence of the judiciary, administration of justice, impunity, 12 Sep 2006, A/61/384. 685 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.13, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 134 (2003), para 15. 686 For example Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention regarding the rights of prisoners of war. 118