Chapter iii  Right to a Hearing by a Competent, Independent and Impartial Tribunal Established by Law 69 emergency situation. This includes the principle that civilians must normally be tried by the ordinary courts but that, 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”.269 The Human Rights Committee has noted the existence in many countries of military courts that try civilians. Although neither the ICCPR nor the ECHR explicitly prohibit the trial of civilians by such courts, the current trend at the international level excludes criminal jurisdiction of military courts over civilians. The Human Rights Committee has said that such trials must be in full conformity with the requirements of Article 14 of the ICCPR and that the trial of civilians by military courts should be exceptional, i.e., “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”.270 In practice, the Human Rights Committee no longer hesitates to criticize States whose legislation permits military courts to try civilians. In the Concluding Observations on Slovakia’s periodic report, for example, the Committee noted with concern that civilians could be tried by military courts in certain cases, including betrayal of State secrets, espionage and State security. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the Criminal Code be amended so as to prohibit the trial of civilians by military tribunals in any circumstances.271 There is an increasing view by treaty bodies that military tribunals should not try civilians. This is also the position of the European Court of Human Rights, as expressed, for example, in Ergin v Turkey, concerning an applicant newspaper editor charged with incitement to evade military service: “The Court derives support in its approach from developments over the last decade at international level, which confirm the existence of a trend towards excluding the criminal jurisdiction of military courts over civilians.”272 The Ergin v Turkey case is emblematic, in that the European Court of Human Rights put forward the following principles: a. While it cannot be contended that the ECHR absolutely excludes the jurisdiction of military courts to try cases in which civilians are implicated, the existence of such jurisdiction should be subjected to particularly careful scrutiny;273 269 UN ECOSOC, 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), para 70(f). 270 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 22; Kurbanov v Tajikistan, HRC Communication 1096/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/D/1096/2002 (2003), para 7.6; Bee v Equatorial Guinea, HRC Communications 1152/2003 and 1190/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1152&1190/2003 (2005), para 6.3; Abbassi v Algeria, HRC Communication 1172/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/89/D/1172/2003 (2007), para 8.7; and Benhadj v Algeria, HRC Communication 1173/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1173/2003 (2007), para 8.8. 271 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Slovakia, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.79 (1997), para 20. 272 Ergin v Turkey [2006] ECHR 529, para 45. 273 Ergin v Turkey [2006] ECHR 529, para 42.