A/HRC/8/4 page 15 condition for preserving their independence and impartiality is that they should not be subjected to external influence or pressure, and this calls for institutional machinery to ensure that both these requirements are met.36 Recalling the provisions of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary,37 the Committee states that a situation where the functions and competences of the judiciary and the executive are not clearly differentiated, or where the executive is able to control or direct the judiciary, is incompatible with the notion of an independent tribunal.38 The work of the Special Rapporteur since the mandate was established has shown that a perceived lack of independence and impartiality does indeed have a negative effect on the exercise of the right of access to justice. Apart from generating distrust, and even fear, it encourages people not to have recourse to justice. This situation can lead to structural obstacles, which are even greater in countries with high rates of corruption. 35. Mediation or arbitration bodies - Certain forms of alternative dispute resolution, administered by bodies other than conventional courts of law, can facilitate access to justice, saving those involved time and money. Mediation and arbitration, for example, are judicial channels that are more flexible as to the procedures and rules to apply, since officials do not have to limit themselves to the law. However, the use of alternative mechanisms should not lead to substandard justice or obstruct the right to obtain a court ruling. It is therefore necessary to regulate these new channels and define their powers, since they cannot always be a substitute for the administration of justice by a court and, in any case, the fundamental elements of due process must be observed and the independence and impartiality of those who disperse justice preserved. 36. Special courts - Special courts composed of anonymous judges have been established in various countries as part of efforts to combat terrorism. These courts curtail the right to a fair trial in fundamental ways. For example, the public nature of the trial is often very limited or non-existent, to the point where, in many cases, no one even knows that a trial is being held. Furthermore, such courts usually exclude from the courtroom the accused and their lawyer,39 and indeed the court’s own records, supposedly intended to clarify the case.40 Information between 36 Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Milan, 26 August to 6 September 1985, endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985. Vid., en particular ppos. 2, 3 y 5. 37 Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, op. cit., en particular ppos. 1, 3 y 4. 38 CDH, Comunicación Nº 468/1991, Oló Bahamonde c. la Guinea Ecuatorial, párr. 9.4. 39 CDH, Comunicación Nº 1298/2004, Becerra Barney c. Colombia, párr. 7.2. 40 CDH, Comunicaciones Nos. 577/1994, Polay Campos c. el Perú, párr. 8.8; 678/1996, Gutiérrez Vivanco c. el Perú, párr. 7.1; 1126/2002; Carranza Alegre c. el Perú, párr. 7.5.