A/HRC/27/48 III. Thematic issues A. Military justice 66. Once again, the Working Group notes the irregularity of judges who are under military command trying civilians.2 The experience of the Working Group is that military tribunals are often used to deal with political opposition groups, journalists and human rights defenders The trial of civilians or decisions placing civilians in preventive detention by military courts are in violation of the International Covenant and customary international law as confirmed by the constant jurisprudence of the Working Group. 67. In the Working Group’s view, there is an irreconcilable contradiction of values in the make-up of military courts, the main effect of which is not the denial of justice, but rather a direct injustice. One of the core values of a civilian judge is his or her independence, while the most appreciated value in a military official is exactly the opposite: his or her obedience to his or her superiors. 68. Therefore, as has been said by the Working Group, the intervention of a military judge who is neither professionally nor culturally independent is likely to produce an effect contrary to the enjoyment of the human rights and to a fair trial with due guarantees. The Working Group wishes to reiterate the human rights of accused persons, particularly their rights to be brought promptly before an independent and impartial judge; to be brought to trial in the shortest possible time; to be tried without undue delay; to challenge the lawfulness of their detention; to the presumption of innocence; to a public trial; to equality of arms between prosecution and defence; to access to evidence submitted by the prosecution; and other fundamental judicial guarantees of a fair trial. Supporters of military tribunals often insist on the urgency of swift justice and the need to maintain patriotic values. However, the Working Group notes that a court composed of a low-ranking soldier or other military personnel cannot be considered “a competent, independent and impartial tribunal”, as defined under international human rights law 69. The Working Group has set out below certain minimum guarantees that military justice must not fail to respect: (a) Military tribunals should only be competent to try military personnel for military offences; (b) If civilians have also been indicted in a case, military tribunals should not try military personnel; (c) civilians; Military courts should not try military personnel if any of the victims are (d) Military tribunals should not be competent to consider cases of rebellion, the sedition or attacks against a democratic regime, since in those cases the victims are all citizens of the country concerned; (e) 2 20 Military tribunals should never be competent to impose the death penalty. See the following Working Group opinions: No. 20/2012 (Israel); No. 11/2012 (Egypt); No. 12/2012 (Egypt); No. 6/2012 (Bahrain); No. 3/2012 (Israel); No. 1/2012 (Egypt); No. 57/2011 (Egypt); No. 50/2011 (Egypt); No. 37/2011 (Syrian Arab Republic); No. 38/2011 (Syrian Arab Republic); No. 39/2011 (Syrian Arab Republic); No. 1/2011 (Syrian Arab Republic); No. 3/2011 (Egypt); No. 31/2010 (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela); No. 32/2010 (Peru); No. 27/2010 (Syrian Arab Republic); No. 22/2010 (Egypt); No. 23/2010 (Myanmar); No. 13/2010 (Palestinian Authority); No. 9/2010 (Israel); No. 5/2010 (Israel).