A/HRC/45/CRP.9 E. Right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal 124. In territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’, OHCHR documented systematic violations of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, as a result of operations of ‘courts’ of military jurisdiction. These structures temporarily processed ‘criminal cases’ of all individuals charged with grave crimes, including conflict-related offences, in the absence of other ‘courts’ with jurisdiction over such cases. OHCHR notes that ‘courts’ of military jurisdiction of both ‘republics’ did not afford fair trial guarantees and did not meet requirements of independence and impartiality. 125. The ‘military tribunal’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ was created in August 2014 as a ‘specialised court’ of appeal with jurisdiction over crimes committed by military personnel.164 Due to the absence of a general ‘court’ with relevant jurisdiction before February 2019, this ‘military tribunal’ tried civilians for grave crimes. OHCHR documented 69 ‘criminal cases’ between 2016 and 2019 which were processed by the ‘military tribunal’. 126. In one case the ‘military tribunal’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ ‘convicted’ and ‘sentenced’ a civilian to two years and eight months in prison for storing a hand grenade in his home. The ‘judge’ told OHCHR that it had no ‘jurisdiction’ over this ‘case’ by virtue of ‘law’, however, it had taken it on due to “significant public interest”. 127. During the period of operation of the ‘military tribunal’ in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’, its ‘judges’ were subordinated to the ‘head’ of the ‘military tribunal’,165 who in turn was subordinated to the ‘council of ministers’ of the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’.166 This hierarchy calls into question the independence of the ‘military tribunal’. 128. The ‘military court’ of ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, was established in August 2015 as a specialised ‘court of first instance’ with jurisdiction over crimes committed by military personnel.167 Yet OHCHR documented 30 criminal ‘cases’ against civilians processed by the ‘military court’.168 This practice ceased after 25 October 2018 when the ‘supreme court’ commenced operation and took jurisdiction over conflict-related ‘criminal cases’. 129. International human rights law requires that judges are not influenced by personal bias or prejudice, nor favour one party over another. In territory controlled by both selfproclaimed ‘republics’, in 18 cases, OHCHR documented credible allegations of bias of ‘judges’ of various ‘courts’ against individuals accused of supporting the Government of Ukraine or tried for having pro-Ukrainian views. According to the accused, ‘judges’ unfailingly ignored or rejected their procedural motions and statements while granting all the motions of the ‘prosecution’. Individuals interviewed also complained that ‘judges’ scolded and verbally abused them during ‘hearings’ for having a pro-Ukrainian position or treated them like convicts or traitors before pronouncing the ‘verdicts’. Some individuals 164 165 166 167 168 28 providing free secondary legal aid was introduced by an ‘order’ of the ‘council of ministers’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’. It named lawyers associations as responsible for providing free secondary legal aid in cases where the presence of a defence lawyer is mandatory according to ‘criminal legislation’. Although the statute to develop and approve the procedure for remuneration for secondary free legal aid was introduced by the ‘ministry of finance’, this procedure has not been implemented. In territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, the legal act on remuneration for defence lawyers providing free legal aid has not been adopted. The ‘decree’ of the ‘council of ministers’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ “on approval of the Regulation ‘on military courts in Donetsk people’s republic’” of No.27-1 of 17 August 2014, available at supcourt-dpr.su/zakonodatelstvo/postanovlenie-soveta-ministrov-doneckoy-narodnoyrespubliki-ob-utverzhdenii-2; article 35.2 ‘criminal procedure code of ‘DPR’’. Item 6 of the ‘decree’ of the ‘council of ministers’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ “on approval of the Regulation ‘on military courts in Donetsk people’s republic’” of No.27-1 of 17 August 2014, available at supcourt-dpr.su/zakonodatelstvo/postanovlenie-soveta-ministrov-doneckoy-narodnoyrespubliki-ob-utverzhdenii-2. Ibid, para. 5. OHCHR is not aware of any rules in ‘legislation’ of ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ granting the ‘military court’ jurisdiction over cases against civilians. OHCHR is not aware of any legal grounds for referring the said cases to the ‘military court’ instead of ‘local courts’.