CAT/C/39/2 page 79 that account.”57 In this sense, the development of the “appearance theory” is remarkable, and its validity transcends that regional system of protection of human rights. According to the CEDH, some appearances, even if they do not correspond to reality, may create on subjects demanding justice a legitimate doubt about the independence and impartiality of the judge. “Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done” as the English maxim goes, which shows the importance of appearances before the heightened sensitivity of the public regarding the fair administration of justice.58 For Brazil, the confusion of the roles between the authority that investigates the facts, arriving at a suspect/defendant, and the judging authority, in the manner of an inquisitorial process, would seriously jeopardize the independence and impartiality of the proceedings instead of assuring rights and an impartial investigation. “(i) Alleged human rights violations committed by the military police against civilians should be investigated and prosecuted by general criminal courts at all stages of the criminal proceedings, rather than by military courts;” 339. According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court, since the crime of torture is not foreseen in the penal military legislation, must be judged by the mainstream justice (state, in the majority of cases, and federal, in the instances provided for in the Federal Constitution). The same understanding is valid in cases of abuse of authority or any other not provided in the Military Penal Code. The competence of the military justice is restricted to crimes committee by a soldier on duty. 340. Moreover, since the advent of Law 9.299/96, intentional crimes against life committed by a military officer against civilians, even in the course of duty, have been shifted to the competence of ordinary justice. The same Law revoked the provision of the Military Penal Code that gave military justice competence to try crimes committed by soldier on leave using a weapon belonging to their unit. 341. The most important judicial precedent is reproduced below: 57 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Piersack v. Belgium (judgement) [Chamber], Application no. 8692/79, 1 October 1982, series A, no. 53, para. 30. 58 See the following decisions of the European Court, among others: Piersack v. Belgium of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15, and para. 30; Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, pp. 39-40, para. 18; Sramek v. Austria of 22 October 1984, Series A no. 84, p. 20, para. 42; De Cubber v. Belgium of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 14, para. 26; Bönisch v. Austria of 6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, p. 15, para. 32; Belilos v. Switzerland of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 30, para. 67; Hauschildt v. Denmark of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, para. 48; Langborger v. Sweden of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 155, p. 16, para. 32; Demicoli v. Malta of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, p. 18, para. 40; Brandstetter v. Austria of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, para. 44; Borgers v. Belgium, of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214, pp. 8-10, paras. 22-29.