A pleasant surprise in Venezuela

There's been a surprising decision in Venezuela. Acknowledging international standards and rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Venezuela has ruled that military courts may not try civilians. Details can be found in this article from Correo del Caroní. Excerpt [Google Translate]:

[O]n July 30, the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court in its sentences 70 and 71, expressed the following:

The unionist Rubén González and the deputy Gilber Caro are two cases that show the unconstitutional use of military justice [against] civilians.

“The military judge is not the natural judge for the criminal prosecution of civilians, due to not meeting the constitutional and legal requirements for the healthy performance of the jurisdictional function, with respect to non-military and even less in crimes other than military nature. , with the understanding that the purpose of the military jurisdiction is to maintain order and discipline within the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, through the prosecution of military crimes committed by the acting military ”.

* * *

With these decisions, the Supreme Court seems to return to the jurisprudential line that began to be drawn from the entry into force of the Magna Carta of 1999, which in its article 261 is clear when it indicates that "the commission of common crimes, violations of rights human rights and crimes against humanity will be tried by ordinary courts. The jurisdiction of the military courts is limited to crimes of a military nature”.

It is also striking that on this occasion the Criminal Cassation Chamber not only appealed to the Constitution and its previous judgments, but also to pronouncements of the IACHR and the Inter-American Court. This is no small thing, because over the last two decades the highest court has not only ignored the decisions of the regional human rights protection bodies, but has also disregarded them, and even at the time, opened the doors for the country to leave the jurisdiction of the Court in 2013 with the denunciation of the American Convention on Human Rights.

The 1999 Constitution provides [Google Translate]:

Article 261. The military criminal jurisdiction is an integral part of the Judicial Power, and its judges will be selected or selected by competition. Its scope of competence, organization and modes of operation will be governed by the accusatory system and in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Code of Military Justice. The commission of common crimes, violations of human rights and crimes against humanity will be judged by the ordinary courts. The jurisdiction of the military courts is limited to crimes of a military nature. The law shall regulate what is relative to the special jurisdictions and the competence, organization and functioning of the courts insofar as it is not provided for in this Constitution.

A small number of other countries, such as Egypt, Uganda, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Russia, persist in prosecuting civilians in military courts, despite the contrary human rights jurisprudence. U.S. law provides for the court-martial of persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field in time of declared war or a contingency operation.