E/CN.4/1995/111 page 27 85. Ordinary criminal justice also includes the regional courts, which were formerly called the public order courts and have jurisdiction in proceedings for offences such as terrorism, rebellion and drug trafficking. Non-governmental sources levelled harsh criticism against these courts and their operational procedures, which they considered to undermine due process. In the first place, these categories of offences have been broadly interpreted, resulting in the use of these courts to prosecute not only major criminals, but also activists from peasant, community, labour and similar organizations whose protests, political demonstrations and labour disputes are often characterized as terroristic or supportive of the guerrillas. As far as procedural aspects are concerned, the anonymity of the judges, prosecutors, criminal investigation police officers and even witnesses for the prosecution are still serious obstacles to the exercise of the rights of the defence, despite the reforms introduced in 1993. In this connection, the Fiscal General de la Nación expressed to the Special Rapporteurs his view that there should be supervision of these courts in order to avoid abuses. 86. In the framework of the Regional Justice system, special offices of the Fiscalía assigned to military units were established under emergency legislation which gave judicial police powers to the armed forces. The main function of these fiscalías in practice has been perceived as legitimizing acts, arrests in particular, carried out by the military in the exercise of functions which normally should not be in their competence. The Special Rapporteurs were informed that the decree establishing those powers was declared by the Constitutional Court to be unconstitutional, but that, despite this fact, the military continue to exercise those functions and the fiscalías still exist. Military criminal justice 87. According to the information received, the military criminal courts hand down harsh sentences for all violations of internal police or armed forces regulations; it was even stated that they were often excessively harsh when members of the rank-and-file were involved. The situation is quite different, however, in cases in which the offences in question are against civilians (robbery, injury, murder, etc.) and a high percentage of them end in the suspension of the proceedings. While, in the first instance, the military itself has an interest in seeing the culprits punished and it is therefore easier to collect evidence, in the second, cover-ups, partiality and pressuring of witnesses appear to be standard practice. 88. According to a study conducted by the Procuraduría General de la Nación, of 7,903 judgements handed down from early 1992 to mid-1994 by the Higher Military Court, 4,304 were convictions and 4,103 of those were for violations of internal regulations. However, there was a significant number of acquittals and suspensions of proceedings for non-military offences, i.e. offences against the civilian population. 89. Another disturbing aspect of these courts is the fact that they are composed of officers who can also be responsible for ordering military operations in connection with which human rights violations have occurred something that is contrary to the principle of the independence and impartiality of military judges and is a cause of impunity.