President, his deputies and senior military officers to appoint these courts to consist of "three military officers or any other persons of integrity and competence". The composition alone creates the impression, if not the reality, of lack of impartiality and as a consequence, violates Article 7.1(d). The government has a duty to provide the structures necessary for the exercise of this right. By providing for courts whose impartiality is not guaranteed, it has violated Article 26. The dismissal of over one hundred judges who were opposed to the formation of special courts and military tribunals is not contested by the government. To deprive courts of the personnel qualified to ensure that they operate impartially thus denies the right to individuals to have their case heard by such bodies. Such actions by the government against the judiciary constitute violations of Articles 7.1(d) and 26 of the Charter. --Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa case, Comm. No. 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93, 8th Annual Activity Report 1994 - 1995 (paras. 68-69). E.3 Right to appeal United Nations The Human Rights Committee has addressed the question of the right to appeal under article 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, with respect to proceedings conducted by special tribunals. For example: The Committee is concerned that there is no appeal provided for against the decisions of the special court. --CCPR/C/79/Add.80, para. 23 (1997). ***** The Committee expresses concern [that] persons suspected of belonging to or collaborating with armed groups … are judged by the Audiencia Nacional without the possibility of appeal. --CCPR/C/79/Add.61, para. 12 (1996). The Committee against Torture has also addressed the right to appeal with respect to terrorist offences: The Committee [against Torture] recommends that the State party … [e]nsure that all persons convicted by decisions of military courts in terrorism cases shall 61