The phrase "a tribunal of three" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to a decision-making body or panel consisting of three members, often in legal or formal contexts.
Example: "The case was brought before a tribunal of three, who deliberated on the evidence presented."
Alternatives: "a panel of three" or "a committee of three".
The conversion ceremonies, which followed more than a year of study of all things Jewish, from the history of the religion to blintzes and latkes, were brief: a hearing before a tribunal of two rabbis and a cantor, then a submerging naked into a ritual bath.
In the arbitration process, which is initiated by an investor, a tribunal of typically three international law experts hears arguments from both sides and then decides whether the state in question has breached either a trade agreement or its own laws – and, if so, the monetary value of that breach.
The corporation responded by asking a private tribunal of three lawyers, under a Canada-Ecuador investment pact, to order compensation from the government.
But last Wednesday, a special tribunal of three federal judges threw out the challenge.
The regulations say all captives shall be treated humanely under the Geneva Protocols until their status is determined by a screening tribunal of three commissioned officers.
A special tribunal of three federal judges today upheld New Jersey's newly redrawn legislative districts, rejecting Republicans' claims that the new map discriminated against minority voters because it broke up three predominantly black districts in and around Newark.
Last week, a special tribunal of three federal judges rejected the claim that the power of minority voters would be diluted and ruled, instead, that the shifts broadened their opportunities to elect candidates of their choice.
The company announced it would use the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to ask a private tribunal of three lawyers to order the U.S. government to pay more than $15 billion as "compensation" for the pipeline rejection that avoided increased climate disruption.
Specifically, TransCanada plans to ask a private tribunal of three lawyers to order the U.S. government to hand more than $15 billion of our tax dollars to the corporation as "compensation" for the Keystone XL decision that spared us the threat of increased climate disruption and spills of dirty tar sands oil.
But in 1899 a tribunal, composed of two American, two British and two Russian judges, ruled largely in favor of the British.
