HRW statement on Jordanian executions

Human Rights Watch has issued this statement concerning a recent mass execution of civilians who were convicted by the National Security Court in Jordan. Excerpt:

Human Rights Watch opposes the creation and use of special courts to try national security crimes, because such courts are frequently authorized by law to conduct trials in a manner that restricts the rights of defendants beyond what is permissible under international human rights law. In many countries, regular criminal courts have proven effective in prosecuting terrorism offenses in accordance with international due process standards. Jordan should restrict its security court’s jurisdiction over civilians as a step toward abolishing the court, Human Rights Watch said.

SOFA watch

The Guardian has published this edifying article on practice and procedure under the US-UK Status of Forces Agreement. Excerpt:

The American military personnel can sometimes bypass the British legal system, even when their alleged offences took place when they were off duty. So why is this happening? And are UK law enforcement authorities abandoning their responsibility to investigate and prosecute crimes that have occurred on UK soil?

And here is The Guardian's article on the case that has brought the SOFA to the fore. Further attention to the case and the SOFA seems likely.

NDAA alert

Will the pending National Defense Authorization Act include a free-speech provision limiting the application of court-martial jurisdiction over retirees? Here's a report from The Hill.

Bill C-11 receives Royal Assent

Here is the government's statement concerning the Military Justice System Modernization Act. We'll have more on the changes in due course.

"A key reform removes Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, while retaining jurisdiction outside of Canada. This change is intended to simplify processes for victims, reduce confusion caused by overlapping systems, and provide greater independence from the chain of command in sensitive cases. It marks a deliberate step in the continued evolution of the military justice system to strengthen clarity, confidence, and trust."

Where should human rights violations be tried?

Peru is fixing to change its system to permit military courts to try such cases. There's blowback from the UN and elsewhere. Salma Ben Mariem has written this Jurist News column on the controversy. Excerpt:

If it comes into force, the bill would bar members of the armed forces or police from being tried in a civil court for the same facts if proceedings have already been opened before a military or police court. The draft law still requires a second vote in a plenary session before its promulgation by the Executive.

Peru has previously faced criticism for its handling of justice and the prosecution of human rights violations. In August 2025, UN human rights experts criticized a national law that granted amnesty to security forces accused of committing serious violations of international law during the internal armed conflict between 1980 and 2000, describing it as a violation of international law. The UN also expressed concern about the erosion of the rule of law in the country following the dismissal of a Peruvian judge from his post for comments he made regarding alleged institutional interference in the judiciary. Additionally, the UN raised concerns about the release of a former military officer who was convicted of the murder of a journalist in 1988.