A/HRC/13/30 B. Military tribunals 66. It is not the first time that the Working Group observes that the right to justice is affected by military tribunals. It has already done so in its reports (E/CN.4/1994/27 (paras. 29, 34 and 35); E/CN.4/1995/31 (para. 44); E/CN.4/1996/40 (para. 107); E/CN.4/1999/63 (paras. 49, 79 and 80); E/CN.4/2001/14 (para. 36); E/CN.4/2004/3 (paras. 58, 59 and 67); A/HRC/4/40 (para. 6); and A/HRC/7/4 (paras. 63 to 66, 78 and 82)). In 2009, the Working Group once again found that the trial of civilians by military tribunals usually has an adverse effect on the enjoyment of the right to liberty of person, the right to a fair and, above all, prompt trial, the right to be brought before a judge without delay, to be released pending trial, to appeal against detention and to be tried in public by a legally established, independent, competent and impartial court, the right to a presumption of innocence, to equality of arms and to access to evidence, the right to a free and adequate defence, the right to be tried without delay, etc. 67. It is important to ensure that the terms of article 14 of the Covenant are not violated, either now or in the future. That the right to liberty of person embodied in article 9 of the Covenant is taken up together with the right to security of person is not a minor detail. The mere fact that a court which decides over a person’s liberty is in the hands of judicial authorities, one of whose most characteristic principles is obedience of superiors, clearly affects the right to security of person under article 9. 68. In the above-mentioned report contained in E/CN.4/1999/63, the Working Group was of the opinion that “if some form of military justice is to continue to exist, it should observe four rules: (a) (b) civilians; It should be incompetent to try civilians; It should be incompetent to try military personnel if the victims include (c) It should be incompetent to try civilians and military personnel in the event of rebellion, sedition or any offence that jeopardizes or involves risk of jeopardizing a democratic regime; and (d) It should be prohibited from imposing the death penalty under any circumstances.” 69. In general comments No. 13 on the administration of justice (para. 4) and No. 32 on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (para. 22), the Human Rights Committee warned of the difficulties which military jurisdiction causes for the enjoyment of human rights and pointed out “that the trial of civilians in military or special courts may raise serious problems as far as the equitable, impartial and independent administration of justice is concerned. Therefore, it is important to take all necessary measures to ensure that such trials take place under conditions which genuinely afford the full guarantees stipulated in article 14. Trials of civilians by military or special courts should be exceptional, i.e. limited to cases where the State party can show that resorting to such trials is necessary and justified by objective and serious reasons, and where with regard to the specific class of individuals and offences at issue the regular civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials” (general comment No. 32, para. 22). 70. In general comment No. 8 on the right to liberty and security of persons, the Human Rights Committee describes a very frequent situation that is implicitly linked to detention ordered by military tribunals upon the entry into force of states of emergency: one of the common effects of states of emergency is that offences relating to public security are referred to military tribunals. Consequently, the Committee cautions that also if so-called preventive detention is used, for reasons of public security, it must be controlled by these GE.10-10294 19