A/HRC/28/32 I. Introduction 1. In its resolution 25/4, the Human Rights Council requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to organize an expert consultation for an exchange of views on human rights considerations relating to the issues of administration of justice through military tribunals and the role of the integral judicial system in combating human rights violations, and to present a summary of the discussions to the Council at its twenty-eighth session. The expert consultation was held in Geneva on 24 November 2014. II. Statement of the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights 2. The United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights opened the expert consultation by pointing out that the wide variety of military justice systems made generalizations about such institutions difficult, if not impossible. These systems had developed over time as a result of each country’s unique history, legal tradition and choices. 3. In a significant number of States, military tribunals were perceived as credible judicial institutions and subject to civilian judicial oversight. In other States, however, Governments had used military justice to persecute opposition figures and to shield military personnel who committed serious human rights violations. 4 International human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, did not refer specifically to military courts. Nevertheless, human rights treaties, and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, were of great relevance to the issue of the administration of justice through military tribunals. The Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 32, stated that the Covenant did not prohibit trials by military courts. It also stated, however, that the guarantees of the Covenant could not be altered by the military character of a court. III. Overview of panel presentations and discussions A. Independence, impartiality and competence of the judiciary, including military courts 5. The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, pointed out that military tribunals had to be an integral part of the general justice system and administer justice in a manner that was fully compliant with international human rights standards, including articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. She noted that, in its general comment No. 32, the Human Rights Committee stated that the requirement of independence referred, in particular, to the procedure and qualifications for the appointment of judges, and to guarantees concerning their security of tenure, the conditions governing promotion, transfer, suspension and cessation of their functions and the actual independence of the judiciary from political interference by the executive branch and legislature. 6. The Special Rapporteur recommended that the independence of military tribunals and their inclusion within the general administration of justice system of the State should be legally guaranteed at the highest possible level; domestic legislation should include specific 3