Chapter 4 • Independence and Impartiality of Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers status of salaried employees.29 It followed that “the manner of appointment of the officers of the local and district offices together with the lack of any guarantees against outside pressures and any appearance of independence clearly show that those bodies [could not] be considered to be ‘independent’ of the executive within the meaning of” article 6(1).30 Although the Court added that it is not inconsistent with the Convention to entrust “the prosecution and punishment of minor offences to administrative authorities”, it had “to be stressed that the person concerned must have an opportunity to challenge any decision made against him before a tribunal that offers the guarantees of Article 6”.31 Since in the present case the applicant was unable to have the decisions of the local and district offices reviewed by an independent and impartial tribunal, his rights under article 6(1)of the Convention had been violated.32 In some situations, however, the notions of independence and impartiality are closely linked, and, when considering the compatibility with article 6 of the European Convention of the National Security Courts in Turkey and the courts martial in the United Kingdom, the Court has, as will be seen in subsection 4.7 below, examined these notions together. As stated in the case of Incal, for instance, what is of decisive importance is whether the manner in which the court concerned functioned “infringed the applicant’s right to a fair trial”: “In this respect even appearances may be of a certain importance. What is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public and above all, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, in the accused (...). In deciding whether there is a legitimate reason to fear that a particular court lacks independence or impartiality, the standpoint of the accused is important without being decisive. What is decisive is whether his doubts can be held to be objectively justified (...).”33 ***** The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has recommended that the member States of the OAS “take the steps necessary to protect the integrity and independence of members of the Judiciary in the performance of their judicial functions, and specifically in relation to the processing of human rights violations; in particular, judges must be free to decide matters before them without any influence, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, for any reason or from any quarter”.34 29 Ibid., p. 2506, para. 64. 30 Ibid., loc. cit. 31 Ibid. at p. 2507. 32 Ibid., pp. 2506-2507, paras. 64-65. However, the Court came to a different conclusion in the case of Stallinger and Kuso, where expert members were included in the Regional and Supreme Land Reform Boards on account of their experience of agronomy, forestry and agriculture: “the adversarial nature of the proceedings before the boards was unaffected by the participation of the ‘civil-servant experts’”; hence, there was no violation of article 6(1) of the Convention; see Eur. Court HR, Case of Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, judgment of 18 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, p. 677, para. 37. 33 Eur. Court HR, Incal judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1572-1573, para. 71. 34 OAS doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95, doc. 7 rev., Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1996, p. 761. 126 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers