described above, the Commission has an obligation to adjudge on the clearly stated facts contained in the various communications. More so as it does not consider acceptable the position of the government that the atrocities and other assassinations committed within the military institution were “an internal affair of the army; that the army had conducted its own inquiry, following which appropriate sanctions were meted out to those military men who were found guilty” . 90. Article 7 of the Charter stipulates that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: 1. the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights...; 2. the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; 3. the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; 4. the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.” th st 91. Mauritania ratified the African Charter on 14 June 1986, and it came into force on 21 October 1986. The September trials, thus, took place prior to the entry into force of the Charter. These trials led to the imprisonment of various persons. The Commission can only consider a violation that took place prior to the entry into force of the Charter if such a violation continues or has effects which themselves constitute violations after the entry into force of the Charter (cf. decision taken oncommunication 59/91, p. 28). The Commission should therefore have the competence to consider these trials with a view to ascertaining whether the incarcerations that resulted from them constitute a violation of Article 6 of the Charter. 92. The government did not give any substantial response to the allegations that the said trials were arbitrary. Consequently, in conformity with its well-established jurisprudence, the Commission (cf. decisions taken on communications 59/91, 60/91,64/91, 87/93 and 101/93) shall adjudge based on the elements provided by the complainants. 93. The State Security Section of the Special Tribunal does not provide for any appeal procedure. Two specific cases mentioned in the communications took place in September and October 1987 (see para. 10 and 11) and no appeals were authorised. One of the trials ended in the execution of 3 army lieutenants. 94. Furthermore, even when an appeal was allowed, as in the first case in the “Manifesto” (para. 3 th and 4), on 13 October 1986, the Court of Appeal confirmed the verdicts, even though the accused had contested the procedure of the initial trial, and the Public Prosecutor’s office did not contest the complaints of the accused. From all indications, the Court of Appeal simply confirmed the sentences without considering all the elements of fact and law. Such a practice cannot be considered a genuine appeal procedure. For an appeal to be effective, the appellate jurisdiction must, objectively and impartially, consider both the elements of fact and law that are brought before it. Since this approach was not followed in the cases under consideration, the Commission considers, consequently, that there was a violation of Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter. 95. In the judgement of early September 1986 (para. 3), the presiding judge declared that the refusal of the accused persons to defend themselves was tantamount to an admission of guilt. In addition, the tribunal based itself, in reaching the verdicts it handed down, on the statements made by the accused during their detention in police cells, which statements were obtained from them by force. This constitutes a violation of Article 7(1)(b). 96. In most of the cases brought up in these communications (para. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11), the accused either had no access or had restricted access to lawyers, and the latter had insufficient time to prepare the defence of their clients. This constitutes a violation of Article 7(1)(c) on the right to defence. 97. The right to defence should also be interpreted as including the right to understand the charges being brought against oneself. In the trial on the September Manifesto (para. 3), only 3 of the 21 accused persons spoke Arabic fluently, and this was the language used during the trial. This means that the 18 others did not have the right to defend themselves. This also constitutes a violation of Article 7(1)(c).