Impunity issues raised by Peruvian legislation

Attorney Carlos M. Rivera Paz has written this detailed criticism of changes in Peruvian military justice. From Servindi's introduction:

Since 2024, the Congress of the Republic has initiated a strategy for crimes committed by police or military personnel to be judged by the military-police jurisdiction to the detriment of the ordinary justice system.

The strategy is not new. It is the same one that Fujimorism implemented during the 1980s and 90s to grant impunity to the perpetrators of human rights crimes.

Today, at the behest of Fuerza Popular and Renovación Popular, Peru has entered a maelstrom of congressional regulations that reverse the progress in justice achieved in November 2004, established at that time by the Supreme Court of Justice.

Grooming standards and religious liberty in the U.S. Navy

Rear Admiral
Stephen B. Luce,
U.S. Navy

On June 10, 2026, the Chief of Naval Operations issued updated guidance on grooming standards and religious liberty. The complete message can be found here. Excerpt:

In the complex maritime domain, safety is intrinsically linked to overall mission success. The tactical proficiency, physical resilience, and cognitive readiness of each warfighter form the foundational building blocks of our combat power. Consequently, individual performance is a direct multiplier for the lethality of our Fleet. Individual capability and survivability impacts the life, health, and safety of the overall crew. Force preservation requires deliberate consideration of individual rights in the context of uncompromising operational requirements. Modern threats present an existential risk to the individual warfighter; individual casualties immediately cascade into degraded unit readiness, compromised lethality, and reduced overall survivability. Commanding Officers must objectively weigh the fundamental value of accommodating religious practices against the compelling, life-or-death interest of maintaining an absolute protective posture and ensuring the operational viability of our Fleet.

But see A Brief History of Grooming in the U.S. Navy (USNI 2014) 

Military judiciary legislation approved by South Africa's Parliament

In response to the landmark decision of the South African Constitutional Court in O'Brien N.O. v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (CCT 14/23) [2024] ZACC 30; 2025 (2) SA 613 (CC); 2025 (4) BCLR 460 (CC) (20 December 2024), the country's parliament has approved two significant measures. DefenceWeb's report observes:

The Defence Amendment Bill, as its title implies, amends sections of the 2002 Defence Act to ensure compliance with a Constitutional Court ruling, while Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Amendment Bill will see a Military Judicial Committee (MJC) established to regulate “assignment and removal” of military judges, also in line with a Constitutional Court ruling.

The relevant Constitutional Court ruling found two sections of the Defence Act unconstitutional in that they permitted what a Parliamentary Communication Services (PCS) statement has as “members of the Executive” to establish boards of inquiry (BoI) to investigate military judges as well as the content of their judicial decisions. The apex South African court ruled these decisions as undermining the separation of powers, inherent in the Constitution, and a threat to judicial independence.

Also relevant to the DoD Legal Services Division headed by Adjutant General, Major General Eric Mnisi, are changes to the Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act.

The bills will become law upon approval by the President of South Africa. 

Turning intent into "justice"

Mark W. Castillon has written this Real Clear Defense essay, Counsel to Power: How judge advocates turn command intent into 'justice.' 

Summer reading

Sam Libby has written G.I. Joe Behind Bars: Analyzing Military Sentencing Data, Sentencing Guidelines, and Court-Martial Reform, 34 J. L. & Pol'y 63 (2026). Abstract:

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 required the military to restructure its court-martial sentencing procedures to more closely resemble those utilized in federal civilian court. Previously, either judges or court-martial panel members themselves determined an appropriate sentence based on their collective intuition without the aid of specific guidelines. Critics have argued that leaving sentencing in the hands of inexperienced panel members has led to large disparities between servicemembers, especially compared to federal court where the United States Sentencing Guidelines are the lodestar. All the while, no comprehensive dataset exists for researchers to determine the extent of variation across courts-martial. This Article is a first step toward solving these problems and informing policymakers in the Pentagon. Using data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request to the Navy, this Article analyzes sentences for servicemembers charged with child pornography and drug offenses. The Article then compares these results to the applicable sentencing ranges under the Sentencing Guidelines, as well as under the new military sentencing parameters. Generally, the results show that military sentences are closely comparable to those a defendant would receive in federal civilian court based on the Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, this Article argues that the military’s now-promulgated sentencing parameters may not decrease disparities and could lead to greater sentences, particularly given the large variances within the military sentencing parameters themselves. Accordingly, this Article adds crucial empirical analysis to the discourse.