.
These are the measures that we will focus on in this study. In view of the pressure that terrorists have shown that they are capable of exerting on public opinion, it has been seen to be necessary for most States to set up special courts to try the perpetrators of these offenses. These special courts, while they remove the competence that is granted to lay juries by law, nevertheless diverge from one country to another as regards the extent to which they constitute a breach of the common law. .
Ireland, although it is a young independent State, enacted legislation aimed at combatting violence against the State a long time ago, while France was among the last of the European States to avail itself of anti-terrorist legislation opening the way for the creation of specialized courts. The Republic of Ireland's Special Criminal Court owes its existence to a law enacted in 1939, although the "Cour d'assises spécialisée", or Specialized Court of Assizes, has only existed in France since 1986.
Although they have the same objectives, these two courts have fundamental differences. The first is part of a broad legal framework designed to create special courts when normal courts do not appear to be adequate to ensure effective administration of justice, while the second finds its source in a law designed to deal specifically with the phenomenon of terrorism. .
Chapter I - The Legality of the Special Courts in Cases of Terrorism .
The decision to create special courts is, in most cases, the result of exceptional circumstances, that ordinary courts are found to be unable to deal with in order to ensure what may be termed "good administration of justice". Set up, in general, because the States must respond to urgent necessities, these courts tend to alter the essential guarantees that all individuals have the right to expect from an equitable process, and from the respect of their fundamental rights.