--CCPR/C/79/Add.72, para. 10 (1996). ***** The Human Rights Committee has similarly expressed concern over: [the] system of trial by "faceless judges", in which the defendants do not know who are the judges trying them and are denied public trials, and which places serious impediments, in law and in fact, to the possibility for defendants to prepare their defence and communicate with their lawyers. --CCPR/C/79/Add.67, para. 350 (1996). ***** [A] system, which provides for faceless judges and anonymous witnesses, does not comply with article 14 of the Covenant, particularly paragraph 3 (b) and (e), and the Committee's General Comment 13 (21). --CCPR/C/79/Add.76, para. 21 (1997). ***** In Polay Campos v. Peru, the Committee addressed the right to fair trial, as contained in article 14 of the Covenant, through an analysis of “faceless courts”: As indicated by the Committee in its preliminary comments of 25 July 1996 on the Third Periodic Report of Peru and its Concluding Observations of 6 November 1996 … such trials by special tribunals composed of anonymous judges are incompatible with article 14 of the Covenant…. [I]n fact, the very nature of the system of trials by “faceless judges” in a remote prison is predicated on the exclusion of the public from the proceedings. In this situation, the defendants do not know who the judges trying them are and unacceptable impediments are created to their preparation of their defence and communication with their lawyers. Moreover, this system fails to guarantee a cardinal aspect of a fair trial within the meaning of article 14 of the Covenant: that the tribunal must be, and be seen to be, independent and impartial. In a system of trial by “faceless judges”, neither the independence nor the impartiality of the judges is guaranteed, since the tribunal, being established ad hoc, may comprise serving members of the armed forces. In the Committee’s opinion, such a system also fails to safeguard the presumption of innocence, which is guaranteed by article 14, paragraph 2. -- Polay Campos v. Peru, Case No. 577/1994, Views adopted on 6 November 1997 (para. 8.8); see also Gutierrez v. Peru, Case No. 678/1996, Views adopted on 26 March 2002. 57