In the 2005 case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that military courts could not try
civilians, although it noted that during the period 1990-96, most of the
accused persons subject to the jurisdiction of military courts in Chile had
been civilians. The facts involved
Humberto Palamara-Iribarne, a retired Chilean Navy officer, who wrote a book
entitled “Ethics and Intelligence Services,” in which he addressed issues
related to military intelligence and the need to bring it in line with certain ethical
standards. Palamara-Iribarne had self-published
approximately 1,000 copies of the book and all the copies, as well as the
originals, were seized and he was prosecuted in military court for disobedience,
convicted and sentenced to a prison term. He then called a press conference at his
residence and because of the press conference criminal charges were instituted
for contempt of authority against him and he was again prosecuted in military
court, found guilty and sentenced to an additional prison term. The Court noted that he was retired and
consequently a civilian and could not be subjected to military jurisdiction:
139. The
Court has pointed out that the application of military justice must be strictly
reserved to active-duty military members, based on a previous case wherein it
noted that “when [the] proceedings [against the victim] were started and heard,
[he was] a retired military member, and
therefore, could not be trie[d] by the military courts.” Chile, as a democratic
State, must respect the restrictive and exceptional scope of military courts,
and exclude the trial of civilians from the jurisdiction thereof.
140. The
description of the criminal offenses of disobedience and breach of military
duty as contained in the Code of Military Justice provides that the perpetrator
must have “military status.” In this regard, the Court considers that Mr.
Palamara-Iribarne, as a retired officer, did not have the “military status
required to be the perpetrator of the criminal
offenses charged, and therefore, the above military criminal provisions were
not applicable to the accused. Furthermore, the Court considers that Mr.
Palamara-Iribarne, at the time he wrote the book and set in motion its
publication, did so in the legitimate exercise of his right to express his
opinions and ideas freely.
141. The
Court considers that Chile has not adopted the necessary measures for Mr.
Palamara-Iribarne to be tried by ordinary courts, since as a civilian he did
not have the military status required to be deemed the perpetrator of a
military criminal offense. The Court notes that, in Chile, establishing that a
person has military status is a complex task which requires the interpretation
of various provisions and regulations, which allowed the judicial authorities
who applied them to make a broad interpretation of the concept of “military” in
order to subject Mr. Palamara-Iribarne to the military courts.
142. Such broad jurisdiction of
military courts in Chile, which allows them to hear cases which should be heard by civilian courts, is not in
line with Article 8(1) of the American Convention.
143. The Court has pointed out
that “[w]here the military courts find themselves competent to hear cases which
should be heard by ordinary courts,
the right to be tried by a competent judge or court is violated, and so is, a
fortiori, due process, which, in turn, is closely related to the right to a
fair trial.” The trial of civilians is incumbent on the ordinary justice.
In September 2010, Chile adopted
Law No. 20,477, which was promulgated on December 30, 2010, and excluded
civilians from the competence of military courts, in compliance with the
Inter-American Court’s judgment in the Palamara-Iribarne
case. According to Human Rights Watch,
military courts, however, still exercise jurisdiction over Carabineros, uniformed police that are part of the Armed Forces,
for crimes committed against civilians, such as torture and ill-treatment.
As of August 2012, over 1,300
cases against military personnel and civilian collaborators have been presented
to civilian courts for human rights violations during the Pinochet regime.
I fully endorse the approach take by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights and the adoption of Law No.20477 by Chile. Civilians should not be subjected to military justice whose objective is the maintenance and promotion of self and group discipline in the military in order to achieve operational readiness.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada trials before military tribunals result in the loss of important constitutional, procedural and sentencing rights such as the constitutional right to a trial by a jury, the right to a preliminary inquiry, the benefits attached to hybrid offences, the right to a conditional discharge, the right to serve the sentence of imprisonment in the community, to name a few.
The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada has taken under reserve a decision of a court martial involving the prosecution of a civilian pursuant to the military Code of Service Discipline: see Her Majesty the Queen v. Wehmeier CMAC-553
It will be interesting to see the approach the CMAC will take with respect to the issue.
For further (earlier) background on the Carabineros see Meredith Fensom, Judicial Reform, Military Justice, and the Case of Chile's Carabineros, 22 Int'l L.Q. 1 (Summer 2007),http://internationallawsection.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/20070701_ILQ.pdf.
ReplyDelete