98. A senior military officer who is not required to have legal training, heads the section responsible for matters relating to state security in the Special Tribunal. Two assessors, both military men, assist him. The Special Tribunal is itself presided by an army officer. In the joint procedure on communications 139/94, 154/96 and 161/97 (International PEN, Constitutional Rights Project, Interights and Civil Liberties Organisation/Nigeria), the Commission reached the conclusion that the “Special Military Tribunals …constituted a violation of Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter by the very virtue of their composition, which is reserved to the discretion of the executive organ”. Withdrawing criminal procedure from the competence of the courts established within the judicial order and conferring onto an extension of the executive necessarily compromises the impartiality of the Courts, to which the African Charter refers. Independent of the qualities of the persons sitting in such jurisdictions, their very existence constitutes a violation of the principles of impartiality and independence of the judiciary and, thereby, of Article 7(1)(d). 99. Article 26 of the Charter states that: “States Parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the courts…” 100. By establishing a section responsible for matters relating to state security within the Special Tribunal, the Mauritanian state was reneging on its duty to guarantee the independence of the courts. The Commission therefore concludes that there has been violation of Article 26. 101. Article 9(2) of the Charter stipulates that: “Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.” 102. Communication 61/91 alleges that the trials on the “Manifesto” (para. 3, 4, 5, 6) and the other related cases (para. 8 and 9) violate the right to freedom of expression and dissemination of one’s opinions, to the extent that the accused were charged with distributing a manifesto which provided statistics on racial discrimination and were calling for a dialogue with the government. The expression “within the laws” must be interpreted as reference to the international norms. To the extent that the “Manifesto” did not contain any incitement to violence, it should be protected under international law. 103. Once again, the government did not contest the facts adduced by the complainants. In view of the foregoing, the Commission shall base its argument on the elements provided by the complainants (cf. Decisions 59/91 et al, cited in para. 89 [sic]). 104. Considering that the trials in question in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 took place prior to the entry into force of the African Charter, the Commission finds no violation of Article 9(2)as regards these cases. However, if the indictments constituted a violation of the African Charter, the detentions that ensued from them would be arbitrary and violate Article 6. The Commission is of the view that these cases would have led to violation of Article 9(2) had they taken place after the entry into force of the Charter. Consequently, the detention of the accused would have been a violation of Article 6. 105. The cases mentioned in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, which were heard after the entry into force of the Charter, are a violation of the rights stated and protected in Article 9(2). 106. Article 10(1) of the Charter stipulates: “Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law…” 107. Some presumed supporters of the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party were imprisoned for belonging to a criminal association. The accused in the third case relating to the “Manifesto” (para. 6) were charged [with] belonging to a secret movement. The government did not provide any argument to establish the criminal nature or character of these groups. The Commission is of the view that any law on associations should include an objective description that makes it possible to determine the criminal nature of a fact or organisation. In the case under consideration, the Commission considers that none of these simply rational requirements was met and that there was violation of Article 10(2). 108. Article 11 of the Charter stipulates: “Every individual shall have the right to assemble freely with others. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law, in particular, those enacted in the interest of national security, the safety, health, ethics and rights and freedoms of others.” 109. The accused in the Manifesto case were charged [with] holding unauthorised meetings (para. 3 and 6). The trial in question in paragraph 3 took place before the entry into force of the African