Conditioning public access to courts-martial

ChosunBiz reports here on a recent decision of South Korea's National Human Rights Commission. At issue was, among other things, whether spectators at a court-martial could be required to sign a pledge not to bring in their cellphones during proceedings. Excerpt:

[T]he NHRC said it determined that "the Court-martial's requiring the submission of a pledge when entering a military unit" lacks a legal basis and could infringe on freedom of conscience under the Constitution, and that "the current environment for observing military trials" could undermine the effective guarantee of the constitutional right to know and the principle of open trials.

The NHRC conveyed the opinion to the Minister of the Ministry of National Defense that, instead of a pledge, there is a need to receive the submission of a "guidance and acknowledgment form on the protection of military secrets, etc." and to issue a copy. It added that it is also necessary to prepare and implement measures to enhance spectators' accessibility to the Court-martial (a mid- to long-term roadmap, such as installing an off-base entrance for the Court-martial).

The Commission's last point is interesting. At the UK's Military Court Centres, it is possible to enter the courtroom area directly from a public parking lot. From the government website:

The courts are located on the perimeter of a military establishment. This design provides public access to the Service Courts. The public entrance is staffed by the personnel from Military Provost Guard Service who employ security screening checks as a condition of entry.

Pakistan's retired-officers case

The Express Tribune has further reporting on the case of retired Lieut. Gen. Faiz Hameed:

Lawyers who conduct trials in military courts say that, as a general practice, written judgments are provided to convicted persons only after intervention by a high court.

There is no direct right of appeal against military court verdicts in superior courts. However, convicts may challenge such decisions through writ jurisdiction in the high courts, where the scope of judicial review remains limited.

In its majority ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the trial of civilians in military courts. However, in its judgment dated May 7, the court directed the federal government to take steps for appropriate legislation to grant a right of appeal to civilians convicted by military courts.

Despite the passage of several months, the government has yet to take any steps to comply with that directive.

A senior lawyer said the proposed legislation would need to clarify whether the right of appeal would also extend to retired military officers such as Faiz Hameed.

It is hard to see how the field general coiurt-martial could lawfully have personal jurisdiction over a retiree while such an accused would not have a right to appellate review.

Russia expands military court jurisdiction

Legislation recently signed by President Vladimir Putin expands military court jurisdiction, according to this account.

Military court jurisdiction over foreign fighters

Separate amendments grant Russian military courts authority to try stateless individuals and foreign citizens for crimes committed during military service. This change aligns with recent policy shifts allowing non-citizens to enlist in the Russian armed forces, reflecting the ongoing demands of the conflict in Ukraine.

Afghanistan's busy military courts

According to this report, the Taliban government of Afghanistan has been using its military courts extensively:

The Taliban Supreme Court says more than 1,000 people were sentenced to prison by its military courts over a three-month period this year.

According to the court, 1,163 individuals were jailed in the last three months. Taliban military courts handle cases involving personnel serving in military roles within the Taliban administration.

The figures were published in a report by the security and executive directorate of the Taliban Supreme Court. The report did not specify the alleged crimes, charges, length of sentences, identities of those imprisoned or the locations where they are being held.

The report said Taliban military courts also issued thousands of summonses, with some individuals reportedly contacted by telephone and ordered to appear before Taliban military and judicial authorities.

Taliban military courts have jurisdiction over cases involving employees of the ministries of defence, interior and intelligence.

In previous years, Taliban courts have tried cases involving allegations such as kidnapping, document forgery, murder and abuse of authority. In many cases, however, the Taliban have released little information about defendants, their positions, judicial proceedings or the rulings issued.

Happy New Year

 MMXXVI