Executed in 1919 for rebellion, should this Merxican general get a new court-martial?

Felix Santana Angeles, writing here, thinks so. Excerpt:

Ángeles' defense demonstrated that the Military Court Martial had no jurisdiction in the prosecution of the detainee, as he was a civilian who had ceased to perform his military duties, there was no arrest warrant against him, he did not have armed forces at his disposal, he did not generate hostile activity against the military who detained him, and he was not fighting against the Constitution.

For its part, the sentence states that the Extraordinary Court Martial was competent to judge, warning that "it was childish to deny the military character to individuals who have made their profession in the militia and have served in the military branch, enjoying military prerogatives and rights; the military character of an individual should not be ignored, except when the Secretariat has expressly ignored it," thus leaving as fundamental evidence the telegram that indicates "General Felipe Ángeles is being prosecuted for the crime of rebellion," making clear his character as an active military man.