Rotting from within

While Russia has turned a blind eye (with exceedingly rare exception) to widespread war crimes committed by its troops during its war against Ukraine, it apparently is now taking a stronger position at least for some, some of the time, regarding the corruption rotting its armed forces from within. Here's a recent detailed NYT piece on the Russian military fraud prosecution of a colonel whose unit is accused by Ukraine of numerous war crimes in Bucha at the beginning of the full-scale invasion. The colonel is apparently pleading guilty to fraud, bribery and weapons trafficking charges, though he protests that the charges are retaliation for his video "accusing a former Ministry of Defense official of incompetent leadership and forcing troops into mass-casualty missions known as 'meat grinder' assaults." 

According to the Times, "[a]t least 12 high-ranking Russian military officials and generals, as well as dozens of lower-ranking officers, have been indicted on corruption charges in the past couple of years."  

For more on the horror of serving in the Russian military today and those "meat grinder" assaults  mentioned by the above-mentioned colonel, see this excellent and disturbing piece regarding Russian brutality vis a vis its own. I do believe how military treats its own has a correlation to how it treats its enemies and civilians .... brutality within encourages brutality to the external world.

Comparison of the Indonesian Military Legal System with the Malaysian Military Legal System

This post's title is the title of an article by Anis Fauzan, Walidul Halim, and Irwan Triadi, in 2 J. of Law Perspectives Rev. 39 (2026). Abstract:

This study addresses the problem of how differences in legal traditions influence the structure and enforcement of military law in Indonesia and Malaysia. It aims to examine and compare the legal foundations, institutional structures of military courts, and the characteristics of law enforcement applied to members of the armed forces in both countries. The research employs a normative juridical method with a comparative law approach by analyzing statutory regulations, particularly Law Number 31 of 1997 on Military Courts in Indonesia and the Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77) in Malaysia, as well as relevant legal literature and doctrines. The findings reveal that the principal differences between the two systems derive from their respective legal traditions—Civil Law in Indonesia and Common Law in Malaysia—which shape the organization of military courts, jurisdictional design, and procedural mechanisms for adjudicating military offenses. Indonesia relies on a codified and hierarchical military judicial structure, whereas Malaysia integrates common law principles within its court-martial system. Nevertheless, both systems share a fundamental objective, namely maintaining discipline, hierarchy, and command effectiveness within military institutions. In conclusion, despite structural and procedural distinctions, the military legal systems of Indonesia and Malaysia pursue similar normative goals. This study contributes to the development of comparative military law and offers a reference for strengthening military legal reform in Indonesia in alignment with the principles of the rule of law, military professionalism, and legal supremacy.

Wartime military courts proposed for Estonia

Some Estonian parliamentarians with military backgrounds are pressing to establish military courts for use in wartime, according to this report. Excerpt:

Under the plan, the national defense court would begin operating during a state of war. It would handle, under expedited procedure, all kinds of defense-related matters, including failure to report for mobilization, desertion, looting or the requisitioning of property.

Daimar Liiv, a member of the legal section of the Assembly of Reserve Officers and a judge at Tallinn Administrative Court, explained that the peacetime court system is too slow and thorough to resolve situations that arise during wartime.

"In wartime conditions, we cannot apply the same system of legal protection that we currently use through standard procedures. Decisions must be made quickly and judges must be prepared — not only morally, but also in terms of skills — to prepare such decisions. This is my professional assessment: judges currently operate in peacetime mode and cannot envision how this work should function under wartime conditions or whether the legislation is suitable," Liiv said.

Military Police "rushed to judgment" - Hiestand Public Interest Investigation

Last week, on 12 February 2026, the Chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) released two reports relating to errors and wrongdoing by Canada's military police in the investigation of sexual assault allegations against an officer, Major Cristian Hiestand, who subsequent to his arrest in December 2021, tragically committed suicide.  These reports were the products of two distinct, yet related, Public Interest Investigations (PII) conducted by the MPCC.

• The "Hiestand PII" (MPCC‑2022‑017 and MPCC‑2022‑041)
• The "Warsame PII" (MPCC-043)

The "Hiestand PII" arose from complaints submitted by Major Hiestand's family in Spring and Summer 2022.  Initially, the MPCC declined to conduct a PII.  However, on 21 November 2022, following reporting by Murray Brewster of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in September 2022, the (then) Acting Chair of the MPCC reversed her earlier decision and directed that a PII would be conducted.  However, the PII was commenced in earnest only after the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal's (CFPM) Professional Standards (PS) section completed its own internal investigation.

The Hiestand complaints focused on the conduct of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), including their interviews (or failure to interview) witnesses and the arrest of Major Hiestand.

Congratulations, Dr. Pascal Levesque

This month, the Chair of Canada's Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC), Tammy Tremblay, announced that our very own friend and colleague, Dr. Pascal Levesque, has joined the MPCC as a Part-Time Member.  As many contributors and readers of the Global Military Justice Reform Blog are likely aware, Dr. Levesque is an accomplished scholar and lawyer.  He served as a legal officer in the Canadian Forces for 15 years, serving in a number of roles.  His LLM thesis examined the celerity of Canada's court martial system and his PhD was published as: Frontline Justice: The Evolution and Reform of Summary Trials in the Canadian Armed Forces (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2020).

Dr. Levesque has practiced law for over 30 years and served as chair of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Law of the Barreau du Québec from 2017 to 2020.  Dr. Levesque will bring his knowledge, skill, and integrity to the MPCC, further reinforcing a statutory tribunal created to help ensure integrity and competence in military policing in Canada.

His bio with the MPCC can be found here: 
Pascal Lévesque, Ph.D.

Congratulations, Pascal!