A/HRC/35/31 process and violate the right to a fair trial in a systematic way (see E/CN.4/1996/37, paras. 66-77). 53. In 1998, the Special Rapporteur noted an increase in complaints of Governments’ non-compliance with internationally accepted standards of due process particularly in terrorist-related crimes, raising questions concerning the integrity, independence and impartiality of the courts (see E/CN.4/1998/39, para. 182). Following the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, the Special Rapporteur announced that he would give careful attention to the effects any measures taken by Governments might have on the respect for the rule of law and the proper administration of justice (see E/CN.4/2002/72, para. 28). 54. The Special Rapporteur later indicated that complaints concerning the failure of Governments to respect internationally accepted judicial guarantees in terrorism-related crimes were constantly increasing. Concerns about the repercussions of counter-terrorism measures on respect for legality were also increasing (see E/CN.4/2004/60, para. 58). States of emergency 55. In several reports, the Special Rapporteur expressed concerns in relation to judicial independence in states of emergency, noting that decrees instituting states of emergency were often followed by mass dismissals of judges, the creation of special courts and the restriction or suspension of the judicial review function (see E/CN.4/1995/39, para. 59). 56. Even during a state of emergency, the rule of law must be respected. The Special Rapporteur said, in particular, that there should be no prolonged detentions without trial, that all detainees should have access to a legal representative and should have the right to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed by an independent court (see E/CN.4/2002/72, para. 28; see also A/HRC/4/25). Military justice and special courts 57. As early as the first report, the Special Rapporteur expressed concerns regarding military courts, revolutionary courts or similar special courts, noting that the criterion of independence was not always assured (see E/CN.4/1995/39, para. 57). 58. The setting up of parallel courts to deal with terrorist-related offences has been mentioned as a matter of concern (see E/CN.4/2003/65, para. 39), since in several circumstances these courts’ composition and procedures are often far from complying with the requirements of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see E/CN.4/2004/60, para. 54). 59. The successive mandate holders have focused considerable attention on the question of the military justice system and the establishment of special courts, in particular for the trial of terrorism-related cases, in their reports to the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council (E/CN.4/2004/60, E/CN.4/2005/60, A/HRC/8/4, A/HRC/11/41 and A/HRC/20/19) and the General Assembly (A/61/384, A/62/207, A/63/271, A/68/285 and A/70/263). 5. Equality before the courts 60. An essential component of the right to access to justice, the right to equality before the courts has been largely addressed by the Special Rapporteur (see, for instance, A/HRC/8/4, para. 20, A/66/289 and A/70/263, paras. 74-84). Fulfilling this provision requires States not only to prohibit de jure or de facto distinction in accessing courts and tribunals that are not based on law and cannot be justified on objective and reasonable grounds, but also to take positive measures to ensure that no human being is deprived of his or her right to claim justice. Women in the justice system 61. The Special Rapporteur has consistently paid particular attention to the relationship between gender and the judiciary, underscoring the problems that women have to face in some countries to enter the judiciary; pointing out the difficulties that arise in some places 10