E. Right to fair trial Key aspects of the right to fair trial are essential to respecting human rights while countering terrorism, including in states of emergency. All systems have stressed the fundamental importance of the presumption of innocence. In addition, all systems have expressed deep concern about the trial of civilians before military and other special tribunals. E.1 Presumption of innocence and other rights United Nations Although article 14 of the Covenant is not listed as non-derogable under article 4, the Human Rights Committee (in General Comment No. 29) has concluded that certain aspects of article 14 are obligatory, even in states of emergency: [T]he category of peremptory norms extends beyond the list of non-derogable provisions as given in article 4, paragraph 2. States parties may in no circumstances invoke article 4 of the Covenant as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance by … deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence. […] Safeguards related to derogation, as embodied in article 4 of the Covenant, are based on the principles of legality and the rule of law inherent in the Covenant as a whole. As certain elements of the right to a fair trial are explicitly guaranteed under international humanitarian law during armed conflict, the Committee finds no justification for derogation from these guarantees during other emergency situations. The Committee is of the opinion that the principles of legality and the rule of law require that fundamental requirements of fair trial must be respected during a state of emergency. Only a court of law may try and convict a person for a criminal offence. The presumption of innocence must be respected. --General Comment No. 29,CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, paras. 11, 16 (2001). See also General Comment No. 13 (on article 14 of the Covenant). European Court of Human Rights [In the Brogan case, the Court] concluded that the fact that the arrest and detention of the applicants were inspired by the legitimate aim of protecting the community as a whole from terrorism was not, on its own, sufficient to ensure compliance with the specific requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The Court, accordingly, finds that the security and public order concerns relied on by the Government cannot justify a provision which extinguishes the very 53