A/HRC/45/CRP.9 with the public, family members and media banned from the courtroom. As justification for the closed hearings, courts in Crimea mostly relied on the “need to ensure the safety of the participants in the proceedings” without mentioning specific reasons in support of the decision to restrict the defendants’ right to a public hearing. OHCHR received information from the defendants’ lawyers and relatives asserting that the practice of excluding the public from court hearings had been used to limit public awareness of trials, restrict public scrutiny and exert additional pressure on the defendants. 147. The right to a public hearing was further limited because the judgments in these cases were not published.191 2. Right to an independent and impartial tribunal 148. Cases against civilians involving allegations of membership in banned religious groups, espionage and subversive activities in Crimea were typically assigned to military courts in the Russian Federation. Contrary to international humanitarian law, such trials were held by military courts sitting outside the occupied territory. without justification. As of 13 April 2020, OHCHR had documented the convictions of 26 Ukrainian citizens from Crimea (25 men and 1 woman) by military courts in the Russian Federation since the beginning of the occupation, while trials in military courts against a further 18 Ukrainian citizens from Crimea were ongoing. 149. Trials in military courts not only took place outside Crimea,192 but also fell short of minimum fair trial standards established under international human rights law, including guarantees of impartiality.193 OHCHR received credible allegations from lawyers that because of the special link between many judges of military courts and the State,194 they tend to favour the prosecution when assessing defence motions, oral statements or evidence. In particular, defence motions which invoked international humanitarian law provisions applicable to Crimea as an occupied territory were systematically rejected by military courts without justification. In one case, the defence argued that since Crimea is a temporarily occupied territory, under the Fourth Geneva Convention, a court may not apply Russian Federation criminal law to the defendant’s actions. The court rejected this argument, stating in the verdict that the defendant is a Russian Federation citizen who committed a criminal offence in the Russian Federation and provided no further justifications for denial to apply IHL.195 150. OHCHR documented 25 conflict-related criminal cases, involving 43 men, where courts196 delivered guilty verdicts in proceedings which failed to uphold the right to a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. 151. OHCHR documented a pattern whereby defendants arrested on charges of sabotage or terrorism would be convicted of other charges based on questionable evidence, such as retracted confessions and contested witness testimony of arresting officers. Analysis of judgments in these cases also demonstrates that the initial sabotage and terrorism charges 191 192 193 194 195 196 32 Even when a court establishes exceptional circumstances which would justify excluding the public from a trial, “the judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning must be made public” except where the interest of juveniles otherwise requires, or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. HRC, General Comment No. 32, para. 29 (CCPR/C/GC/32). The first instance military court is seated in Rostov-on-Don, while appeal hearings often take place in the Moscow region. “Impartiality” of the court implies that judges must not harbour preconceptions about the matter put before them, and that they must not act in ways that promote the interests of one of the parties. The impartiality of the court and the publicity of proceedings are important aspects of the right to a fair trial within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1. See HRC, Communication No. 387/1989, Karttunen v. Finland, Views adopted on 23 October 1992, para. 7.2. Acting or retired military officers have preferential rights to be appointed as judges of military courts. Law of the Russian Federation On Military Courts of the Russian Federation, article 27.2. OHCHR reviewed 13 cases where similar motions were made at different stages of court proceedings. In all 13 cases, these motions were rejected. Including courts in the Russian Federation hearing cases concerning Ukrainian citizens living in Crimea.