Chapter 4 • Independence and Impartiality of Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers consider ex officio these grounds and to replace members of the court falling under the disqualification criteria. ... A trial flawed by the participation of a judge who, under domestic statutes, should have been disqualified cannot normally be considered to be fair or impartial within the meaning of article 14”.70 In this particular case, the Finnish Court of Appeal had considered, on the basis of only written evidence, that the verdict of the District Court “had not been influenced by the presence of lay judge V. S., while admitting that V. S. manifestly should have been disqualified”.71 The lay judge had made some allegedly improper remarks during the testimony given by the author’s wife, remarks that, as admitted by the Government itself, “could very well have influenced the procurement of evidence and the content of the court’s decision”.72 The Committee concluded that, in the absence of oral proceedings before the Court of Appeal, which was the only means of determining “whether the procedural flaw had indeed affected the verdict of the District Court”, there had been a violation of article 14.73 As further emphasized by the Human Rights Committee, in addressing a jury, the presiding judge must not give instructions that are either arbitrary, amount to a denial of justice, or violate his obligations of impartiality.74 ***** In the case concerning the Constitutional Rights Project, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights had, inter alia, to consider the compatibility with article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of the Civil Disturbances (Special Tribunal) Act, under the terms of which that tribunal should consist of one judge and four members of the armed forces. In the view of the Commission, the tribunal was as such “composed of persons belonging largely to the executive branch of government, the same branch that passed the Civil Disturbance Act”.75 The Commission then recalled that article 7(1)(d) of the Charter “requires the court or tribunal to be impartial”, adding that, “regardless of the character of the individual members of such tribunals, its composition alone creates the appearance, if not actual lack, of impartiality”. Consequently, there had been a violation of the said provision in this case.76 ***** 70 Ibid., loc. cit. 71 Ibid., p. 120, para. 7.3. 72 Ibid., p. 117, para. 2.3 and p. 119, para. 6.3 read together. 73 Ibid., p. 120, para. 7.3. 74 Communication No. 731/1996, M. Robinson v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 29 March 2000), in UN doc. GAOR, A/55/40 (vol. II), para. 9.4 at p. 128; in this particular case there was no evidence “to show that the trial judge’s instructions or the conduct of the trial suffered from any such defects”. 75 ACHPR, Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria, Communication No. 87/93, para. 13; for the text of the judgment, see e.g. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/87-93.html. See also ACHPR, International Pen, Constitutional Rights Project, Interights on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr. and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria, Communications Nos. 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 and 161/97, decision of 1 October 1998, para. 86; for the text see http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/137-94_139-94_154-96_161-97.html. 76 Ibid., para. 14. 136 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers