E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.3 page 19 61. This is the case, for example, of the Zapotec indigenous people belonging to the Organización de Pueblos Indígenas Zapotecos (an indigenous organization) in Oaxaca, Sierra Sur, who have been the subject of judicial proceedings for over six years, and others like Sansón Aguilar Mercedes, who is still being held in Tlaxiaco. K. Impunity of those responsible for arbitrary detention 62. It is well known that some of those responsible for arbitrary detention enjoy impunity. Many monitoring mechanisms still do not have sufficient independence, as they are hierarchically subordinate to the administrative authority and others lack the necessary credibility. In addition, some practices are tolerated by the perpetrator’s superior. A large number of persons are brought before the courts after being detained arbitrarily and their cases are heard, but a similar, or perhaps greater, number are released after being detained illegally and without having access to a judge. Those in the latter group do not always file a complaint, although the Working Group learned of several cases in which complaints that were submitted were not investigated and the officers were not punished for using this kind of detention. 63. Although the monitoring mechanisms are more effective than before, arbitrary detention is not duly classified as a federal offence, but only as abuse. The Working Group is unaware of any cases in which public officials have been tried and punished for this violation, even though it is one of the main complaints about human rights violations, as noted in various reports of the national and State human rights commissions, whose recommendations on this matter are not usually applied properly or followed up sufficiently for practical purposes. L. Administration of justice by military courts 64. The appearance by two army generals before a court martial prompts the Working Group to make the following critical comments on their recent trial for drug-trafficking and their trial for the crime of enforced disappearance. 65. On the basis of the evidence and given that the two generals were being prosecuted for drug-trafficking, the matter should theoretically have come under the jurisdiction of an ordinary civil court, as in the case of the trial of another general a few years ago. The military court, which was the first to be convened, disqualified itself from the case, saying it should be heard by a civil court. The latter, in turn, disqualified itself. The dispute was settled in favour of the military court. However, for procedural reasons, the Supreme Court has been requested to rule on jurisdiction in the case. Its decision will be particularly important, as it will affect the fight against corruption. To avoid any time-wasting ploys, this fight must be waged, at the judicial level, with the strictest possible respect for the right to a fair trial, which implies that it should take place before an impartial and independent court; this is not usually how military courts are characterized, as they remain directly or indirectly a statutory part of the military hierarchy. 66. With regard to the disappearances, the criminal trials concern enforced disappearances during the years of the so-called “dirty war”. These acts were serious violations of human rights. The trend in the administration of justice is towards recognizing the jurisdiction of the civil courts in such cases. Thus, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons stipulates, in its article IX, that “persons alleged to be responsible for the acts constituting the