Chapter iii  Right to a Hearing by a Competent, Independent and Impartial Tribunal Established by Law 55 Executive.178 Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has held that, in countries where the law is codified, the organization of the judicial system cannot be left to the sole discretion of the judicial authorities either, although this does not exclude the ability of the courts to have some latitude in interpreting the relevant national legislation.179 The term “established by law” includes not only the legal basis of the existence of the court but also the composition and the competences of the judicial body. The law should also explain the grounds for the exclusion of judges from hearing certain cases. This includes provisions relating to the incompatibilities and disqualification of judges.180 The principle of the legal establishment of the judiciary does not require that an Act of Parliament regulate each and every detail of the operation of the judicial system. So long as the legislature “establishes at least the organisational framework for the judicial organisation”, it is adequate and common for delegated legislation to expand on the operational details of that organization.181 3.1.2 Establishment of each tribunal in accordance with the law The second key feature of the requirement that a tribunal be established by law is that each individual hearing is before a tribunal whose composition is in full compliance with the requirements of the law.182 In other words, the phrase “established by law” covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a “tribunal” but also the composition of the bench in each case, including the circumstances for the replacement of judges (voluntary withdrawal of a judge or recusation).183 In Posokhov v Russia, for example, the failure to appoint lay judges by ballot and for periods longer than permitted by the Lay Judges Act resulted in a finding that the hearing of Posokhov had not been undertaken by a tribunal established by law.184 In, Moiseyev v Russia, the European Court of Human Rights found that the State had failed to explain how 11 replacements of the judges on the bench in the course of the trial could be reconciled with the rule of immutability of the court composition.185 3.1.3 Ad hoc or special tribunals The right of equal access to courts and tribunals (See also 2.1) and equal treatment by courts and tribunals (See also 2.2) requires that similar cases are dealt with in a similar way (See also 2.3). The Human Rights Committee has explained that this means that specially constituted courts or tribunals established for the determination of certain categories of cases 178 Zand v Austria [1978] European Commission of Human Rights, paras 60–70; Coëme and Others v Belgium [2000] ECHR 250, para 98. 179 Coëme and Others v Belgium [2000] ECHR 250, para 98. 180 Lavents v Latvia [2002] ECHR 786, para 114, available in French only. 181 Zand v Austria [1978] European Commission of Human Rights, paras 69–70. 182 Posokhov v Russia [2003] ECHR 17, para 39. 183 Posokhov v Russia [2003] ECHR 17, para 39. 184 Posokhov v Russia [2003] ECHR 17, paras 39–43. 185 Moiseyev v Russia [2008] ECHR 1031, para 179.