<P> In the United States the right to a fair trial is sometimes illusory . For example, the United States Supreme Court said in Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386 that a prosecutor may threaten a person that he will take or withhold an official act and prosecute that person for crime unless that person disposes or parts with their right to peacefully and orderly petition the courts for a redress of grievances . For example, the Rumery court said when talking about an accused" the public interest opposing involuntary waiver of constitutional rights is no reason to hold the agreement here invalid ." Rumery did not receive nor waive their right to a trial during a criminal cause . </P> <P> The European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have clarified that the right to a fair trial applies to all types of judicial proceedings, whether civil or criminal . According to the European Court of Human Rights, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the fair trial rights apply to all civil rights and obligations created under domestic law and therefore to all civil proceedings (see Apeh Uldozotteinek Szovetsege and Others v. Hungary 2000). </P> <P> Both the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have clarified that the right to a fair trial applies not only to judicial proceedings, but also administrative proceedings . If an individual's right under the law is at stake, the dispute must be determined through a fair process . </P> <P> In Europe special proceeding may also be subject to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights . In Mills v. the United Kingdom 2001 the European Court of Human Rights held that a court - martial was subject to Article 6 because of the defendants had been accused of what the court considered to be serious crime, assault with a weapon and wounding . </P>

When was the right to a fair trial established