Sunday, April 27, 2014

Foreign courts, American judgment

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy
The Leahy Law is an American human rights law that prohibits the U.S. from providing training or assistance to foreign military units where credible evidence exists that the units engaged in serious human rights violations.

In implementation, the Leahy Law uses a complex vetting process to determine whether foreign units are cleared or blocked from receiving U.S. training and assistance.

If a unit is blocked during vetting because of human rights violations, the law permits remediation if the abuses are adequately addressed. This is where the law gets interesting to followers of worldwide military justice developments.

The 2014 legislative update to the Leahy Law lists two separate standards for remediation. Title 22 of the United States Code (Foreign Relations) says that units will remain blocked until "the Government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice." Title 10 (Armed Forces) says that no funds will be made available "unless all necessary corrective steps have been taken."

How these remediation steps will be applied is still unclear. Must adjudged sentences match American sensibilities? Will units be remediated if suspects are acquitted? Will foreign military courts be perceived as adequate effective/corrective steps?


  1. How are we to understand "all necessary corrective steps"?

  2. All well said in required documentation BUT not put into practice in good working spirit, but for owing to lack of transparency, as each Govt. pretends perfect, concealing by blowing their own trumpet by having and availing loopholes, in the system. Many exposed matters of concern are not looked into but for grave negligence to aggrieved ex-serviceman. To cite an example:- High time the Indian Ministry of Defence bring-out, affordable, standard " Legal Service tariffs" , with the "ARMED FORCES TRIBUNALS" so that the aggrieved ex-servicemen are not-exploited by advocates linked with the Administrative Member, as self experienced in Chennai Regional Bench. Legal tariffs, will help the aggrieved litigants in State/Central Administrative Tribunals. This expressed in the common-interest of the aggrieved litigants. Could this human right of the aggrieved ex-servicemen, be considered. An NGO operating in the same AFT Chennai also looting ex-servicemen like such advocates, being opportunistic to the situation. More importantly, It is high time, " Chennai Regional Bench, of the ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL," is shifted from the present location, located on the busy Airport Road, difficult for old fragile ex-servicemen and their widows,to even cross such busy road, near Chennai Domestic/International Airport . Seldom does, ex-servicemen travel by air to attend their case with the Armed Forces Tribunal. Such secluded place of A.F.T. location, encourages high advocate fees, bribery and corruption. NGO shifting to Chennai and exploiting ESM's. High time A.F.T. Chennai Regional Bench is shifted, near to Fort Saint George, Defence Island Grounds opposite to ATNK&K Area HQ's which would be more safe and accessible for the ex-servicemen, who make use of common transportation who generally travel by local buses, sharing taxi, auto-rickshaws, local electric trains etc. It will benefit the general well being of aggrieved ex-servicemen calling at Armed Forces Tribunal ALSO restrict the long travel of JAG Officers and his secretarial staff, who reach late with excuse * make long travel from FORT SAINT GEORGE area to St. Thomas Mount and back daily on Military Jeeps/Cars, with the high rise of petroleum products.


Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).