Condonation of a grounding defense rejected

A Trinidad & Tobago Coast Guard officer is on trial for running his ship aground and related offenses. The High Court had previously stayed the case while considering the officer's claim that his superior had condoned the offense by saying the grounding would be treated as an operational matter. The stay was later lifted and the court-martial is proceeding.

Social media post lands Russian civilian in jail following military court trial

Why was this case tried in a Russian naval court?

The Northern Fleet Military Court has sentenced a 46-year-old resident of Arkhangelsk, a city in north-western Russia, to a fine of 500,000 roubles (approximately US$5,700) under the article on public justification of terrorism on the internet (Part 2, Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code). According to investigators, the man posted comments in a messenger in support of the activities of Ukrainian nationalist organisations.

Should Türkiye reintroduce military courts?

Retired Brigadier General Erdoğan Baykal thinks so. He writes:

The issue of the re-establishment of the military judiciary and military courts is in danger of being forgotten by the public. The fact that it is not being discussed or featured on the agenda should not be taken to mean that this need has disappeared or has become a matter of course. This issue is of the utmost critical importance for the discipline and success of the heroic Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) whilst carrying out their duties under wartime conditions. The re-establishment of the military justice system and military courts must be debated in the public sphere and kept on the agenda.

Military justice requires specialisation. What is important is the establishment of a system capable of fulfilling this function. The judges or prosecutors serving within this system may be in civilian or military uniform. The institutions or mechanisms (civilian or military) to which this system would be answerable are open to discussion. ‘However, provided that they are limited solely to military personnel and military offences, there is an absolute need for specialised first-instance military courts in this regard.’

Taking into account the principle of the unity and oneness of the judiciary, there may be no need for a second-tier military judiciary, that is, a separate High Military Court. In line with the need for specialisation, the function of reviewing military judicial decisions could be carried out by units established within the (civilian) Court of Cassation and the Council of State.

Major ruling in Indonesia

Indonesia's Constitutional Court has handed down a landmark decision invalidating parts of the military justice system and giving the government an opportunity to pass remedial legislation. Human Rights Monitor reports on the decision here. Excerpt:

On 15 October 2026, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court delivered Decision No. 260/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Law No. 31/1997 on the Military Judiciary. The Court declared the Act conditionally inconsistent with Article 24(1) and Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution. Those provisions guarantee an independent judiciary and equality before the law. The case was brought by two petitioners, Mr Lenny Damanik and Mrs Eva Melina Br. Pasaribu, through judicial review of the Act.

The Act remains unconstitutional unless the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government amend it within two years of the ruling, that is by October 2028. The amendments must clarify the distinction between military offences and general criminal offences, define which court has jurisdiction over cases involving personnel of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI), and reform the military justice system as a whole.

The ruling is significant. Under the current Act, jurisdiction follows the status of the accused rather than the nature of the offence. Military personnel accused of an ordinary crime against a civilian, such as assault or murder, is tried by a military court, not a civilian one.

Kompas.com has this additional report. Excerpt:

According to Abdul Fickar, the MK's ruling reinforces the principle that TNI personnel accused of military crimes should be tried in military courts, while those charged with common crimes should be prosecuted in civilian courts. He noted that historically, both military-related crimes and general offenses committed by TNI personnel have been adjudicated in military courts. This situation, he argues, has drawn public attention, as general crimes committed by TNI personnel should be handled through the civilian judicial system. 

"Yes, it is indeed a momentum. Because up until now, whether it’s a military crime or a common crime like that of Andri Yunus and others, all have been tried in military courts. They should be tried in civilian courts," Abdul Fickar stated in an interview with Kompas.com on Friday (16/10/2026). 

Abdul Fickar explained that changing the judicial system requires an amendment to the Military Justice Law. The MK's ruling is seen as a catalyst to expedite the development of fairer regulations. “The Constitutional Court's decision also urges the Parliament to swiftly amend the Military Justice Law to ensure that it focuses solely on adjudicating military offenses committed by military personnel,” he said.

Where should this case be tried?

Gang rape investigation in Chile's Rapa Nui -- consider this report from T13. The accused are Chilean marines. Should they be in civilian or military pretrial confinement? Where should the case be tried? Stand by for a ruling from the Constitutional Court.