A/HRC/28/32 B. Right to fair trial before courts, including military courts, and other procedural protections 17. According to Alexander Nikitin, Professor and Director of the Centre for EuroAtlantic Security at the Moscow State Institution for International Relations, many judicial systems were characterized by an absence of integrity and jurisdiction was too fragmented. Mr. Nikitin highlighted at the international level the fragmented nature of the international criminal justice system, and pointed out that ad hoc international criminal tribunals could be created by the Security Council; hybrid courts could be established on the basis of a treaty between a State and the United Nations, or by the United Nations in areas or States subject to peacekeeping operations; and that cases could also be brought before the International Criminal Court. 18. Mr. Nikitin stated that the United States of America was a case of a lack of juridical integrity at the national level. Military courts used the convening authority system for the ad hoc nomination of officers, who might not have legal education, and could be biased, particularly if they came from the same contingent as the accused. Military justice in the United States was fragmented, such as in the case of the creation of military commissions for adversarial combatants. Mr. Nikitin observed that few prisoners in Guantanamo had been sentenced. Foreign suspects tried by military commissions did not have the same constitutional rights as other persons in the United States. He stressed the need to guarantee that military commissions do not use evidence gathered through torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 19. Mr. Nikitin argued that the United States of America had brought a disproportionate number of prosecutions against persons for terrorist-related offences when compared with other States, and that a large majority of these prosecutions had been brought against foreigners or foreign organizations. 20. Mr. Nikitin recommended that, in order to ensure the right to a fair trial, there should be a higher level of integrity in judicial systems, and that the principle of equal (comparable) prosecution should be applied for equal (comparable) crimes. It would be necessary to eliminate non-standard and non-transparent elements of judicial systems, such as courts martial not subordinated to the general principles of civilian justice or extraordinary military commissions. He advocated for the regulation of private military and security companies and the adoption of the draft convention thereon. Mr. Nikitin concluded that it was necessary to fill gaps in the law, and argued that there should be a coordinated approach to justice issues, particularly in non-recognized and failed States. 21. Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, a member of the Human Rights Committee, referred to the procedural protections set out in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Committee stated in its general comment No. 32 that the provisions of article 14 applied to all court and tribunals, whether civilian or military, and that article 14 did not prohibit military courts from trying civilians. It also stated that such trials should be exceptional, that is, limited to cases where the State party could show that resorting to such trials was necessary and justified by objective and serious reasons, and where, with regard to the specific class of individuals and offences at issue, regular civilian courts were unable to undertake the trials. 22. Mr. Seetulsingh pointed out that, in 1999, the Human Rights Committee had recommended that Chile amend the law so as to restrict the jurisdiction of military courts to try military personnel only for offences of an exclusively military nature. 2 Also in 1999, 2 6 CCPR/C/79/Add.104.