DAC-IPAD report on crime victims' rights

The Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault ion the Armed Forces has issued its January 2025 Report on Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights. Executive summary:

The Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) studied the enforcement of crime victims’ rights in the military, as codified in Article 6b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The DAC-IPAD’s study focused on four issues: (1) a crime victim’s standing to assert their Article 6b rights at the trial court, (2) jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) over a crime victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus, (3) the time frame for the Courts of Criminal Appeals (CCAs) of the Military Departments and the CAAF to rule on a crime victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus, and (4) the appellate standard of review applicable to a crime victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus. 

As part of its review, the DAC-IPAD compared the enforcement mechanisms in Article 6b with those in the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), the statute upon which Article 6b is based. In doing so, the DAC-IPAD identified several differences between the enforcement mechanisms of the two statutes and considered whether there were military-specific reasons why the rights of crime victims in military courts-martial proceedings should be less robust than the rights of crime victims in federal courts. To help evaluate these differences, the DAC-IPAD heard the perspectives of military government and defense appellate counsel, military victims’ counsel, and civilian victims’ rights experts. 

The DAC-IPAD recommendations include a legislative proposal incorporating several amendments to Article 6b. T hese amendments would provide crime victims new standing to assert their rights initially at the trial court and would provide a new standard for appellate review of a victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus that is similar to the standard directed by the CVRA in federal court review of victims’ petitions. In addition, the DAC-IPAD recommends that Congress amend Article 6b to provide CAAF discretionary jurisdiction to review a victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus without the need for the victim to rely on certification from the Judge Advocate General of a Military Service to establish jurisdiction. 

Adopting these reforms will bring much-needed clarity and meaningful effect to victims’ rights established by Congress ten years ago and will more closely align the rights of crime victims in military courts-martial with the rights of victims in federal court.