Diabetes and hypertension cannot be deemed "lifestyle disorders" for denial of disability pension : Kerala High Court, India

Livelaw has reported on the decision of the Kerala High Court, wherein the Court has observed that the denial of disability pension to an Armed Forces personnel cannot be on the basis of characterisation of  "Diabetes" and "Primary Hypertension" as mere "lifestyle disorders".

The Kerala High Court while deciding a case filed by an Honorary Captain who was invalided out of service after being diagnosed with "Type-II Diabetes" and "Hypertension," observed that it was the "core responsibility of the Government and Society to protect the morale of soldiers, as soldiers are the ones who risk their lives for the country. A soldier is a blank cheque written to the country for any amount up to and including his life. Article 33 of the Constitution of India allows the Government to restrict or abrogate some rights of the members of the armed forces in order to ensure proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline and in such a situation, the contention that the disease is a lifestyle disorder cannot be accepted as a sufficient reason to deny the claim for disability element of pension."

Accordingly, the petition by the Union was dismissed and the Armed Forces Tribunal's order to grant disability pension was upheld. 

An important question also arises here, if so called "lifestyle disorders" are sufficient basis to invalid personnel out of service, is it not natural for benefits such as grant of Disability Pension to flow automatically thereupon, without burdening Armed Forces personnel with the weight of multiple rounds of litigation? 

Punjab and Haryana High Court directs grant of compassionate appointment to son of a "Battle Casualty" Army Officer

The Tribune reported that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the Rejection Letters and directed the State of Haryana, India, to consider appointment of the son of a "Battle Casualty" Army Officer on compassionate grounds under the Welfare Policy of the State of Haryana.  

The Petitioner's father was a serving officer of the Indian Army who laid down his life while serving in "Operation Snow Leopard", an operation launched by the Indian Army to counter Chinese aggression and halt advancing Chinese forces gaining territory in India. The Petitioner's father passed away due to extreme operational climatic conditions in Leh, Ladakh, India and his death was duly declared as a "Battle Casualty" by the Indian Army as per Army Order 05/2020.

Despite being covered by the State of Haryana's policy dated 28-09-2018 governing compassionate appointment for dependants of Battle Casualty, his application which was duly endorsed by the Indian Army, was rejected by the State of Haryana by a non-speaking order whereby, it was communicated to the Petitioner that he was covered by a new policy of the State of Haryana on the subject dated 14-08-2023. Notably, this Policy did not have any retrospective application. Further, the Respondents submitted that the father of the Petitioner "had not died in action, but had died due to disease". 

The Bench characterised the above submissions as preposterous, crass and ignorant and even pointed out that the condition suffered by the soldier was in active service at a battlefront. Relying on the precedent of Jai Dev Vs State of Haryana & Others, as well as Major Arvind Kumar Suhag v. State of Haryana, the Bench summarised that once the Ministry of Defence certifies a death as "Battle Casualty" the State cannot dispute the characterisation for extending policy benefits.  

The decision affirms that death as a result of active hostilities is not a precondition for Battle Casualty status as well as for extension of welfare policies to the dependants of fallen personnel. 

Clergy are no long exempt from obligatory military service in Switzerland

The Swiss Government has lifted a long-held exemption for clergy from military service. Meanwhile, Catholic Church leaders have protested what they considered to be an “arbitrary” abolition of this traditional military service exemption for the clergy. 

Moreover, during the legislative procedure considering the adoption of this measure none of the national Christian denominations were informed of this initiative nor was any invited to comment to comment on the appropriateness of this initiative.  Auxiliary Bishop Alain de Raemy, the head of the Swiss Catholic military chaplaincy concluded that this decision reflect a “ lack of respect for the [Swiss] population.”  

 See article by The Catholic Register dated 21 July 2026 by Jonathan Luxmoore. OSV News. “Swiss scrap clergy military service exemption?”

The Status of Forces

Hannah Al-Othman, MoD cancels army training in Kenya over powers to prosecute British soldiers.The Guardian (UK), 23 July 2026.

The British army has been forced to cancel training for its troops in Kenya after the Kenyan government refused to ratify a bilateral defence agreement.

While the UK government wanted to renew the existing agreement, Kenyan lawmakers had sought changes to give local authorities greater powers to hold British soldiers accountable for any offences committed in the country.

According to the Kenyan news outlet the Daily Nation, the dispute centres on which cases Kenya will retain primary jurisdiction over, while the amount of money Britain pays Kenya to host the training camp has also been a sticking point.

This comes at an interesting time when the UK government appears to be under criticism over the application of the NATO SOFA and the U.S. Air Force taking taking jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by servicemembers in the UK. See Harry Davies and Rob Evans,‘Degrading’: why did a US fighter pilot avoid British trial after strangling a woman in England? The Guardian (UK), 25 June 2026.

CAAF Notice re AI, July 1, 2026

United States Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces

AI Use in Filings Before the Court

NOTICE

Litigants and their counsel are reminded that they are responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents, including those produced with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence. Counsel are reminded of their duties under Rule 38(a) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which states a counsel’s signature certifies that all filings have been reviewed for truthfulness and accuracy. Any violation or use of AI-generated briefing that misstates the law may be subject to sanction.

                                                                                    For the Court,

                                                                                    /s/ Malcolm H. Squires, Jr.

                                                                                     Clerk of the Court

Landmark ruling in South Korea

Disrespect? Consider this recent decision from the Republic of Korea's Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court ruled that a petty officer in the Navy did not commit the offense of insulting a superior under the Military Criminal Act when, aboard a naval vessel, the petty officer threw off a headset and said, "The commander is a mess," after a superior, a captain, refused to accept the petty officer's opinion. As a result, a Supreme Court precedent established in 1999 was changed after 27 years.

The Supreme Court en banc (presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) on the 22nd overturned the lower court ruling that had sentenced Navy Petty Officer First Class A to six months in prison, suspended for one year, for the offense of insulting a superior under the Military Criminal Act, and sent it back with a ruling of not guilty.

The full article from ChosunBiz can be found here. The decision is not yet available on the English page of the Supreme Court's website.

Proceedings of the 3d International Military Justice Forum

Gwenaël Guyon, Evert Kleynhans, Anna la Grange, Sonja Els, Mariella Terzoli, (eds), Military Justice: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments (RIDP, Libri 15, 2026), now available here. Here is the Preface (by the Editor of this blog):

There is, in English, an old saying that ‘the third time is the charm’. So it is with the International Military Justice Forum, the third iteration of which was held in Paris in 2025. Building on the first two, which were held in Paris in 2021 and Stellenbosch, South Africa, in 2023, the third demonstrated even more compellingly the need for a regular international gathering of experts in both the history of military justice and the issues arising from contemporary state practice in this important field. The third forum also set the stage for the next one, which will be held in London in 2027. All of the forums have been the result of selfless teamwork between scholars at St. Cyr and elsewhere.

The presentations reproduced in this volume of the International Review of Criminal Law reflect a broad range of interests and perspectives and put on display the robust nature of debate surrounding the issues explored at the sessions. Importantly, this is not a choir that sings in unison or expresses a ‘party line’. Some of the contributions generated a good deal of heat, while others covered less controversial ground. Which of the contributions that follow falls in which of these categories I will leave for the reader to speculate on.

The International Military Justice Forum helps to fill a void in contemporary scholarship. While the Law of Armed Conflict receives a great deal of attention in the literature and through professional meetings sponsored by, among others, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War (including its national groups, some of which are remarkably active), military justice itself merits greater attention. And it is getting that attention, not only through the International Military Justice Forum, but also through such recent and very welcome developments as the creation of the Forces Law Review and the Commonwealth’s Military Justice Principles and the related Model Law on Military Justice for Smaller Armed Forces. That particular project is among those discussed in the current volume, and, as a non-Commonwealth advisor, it gives me great pleasure to report that the Law Ministers meeting in Fiji has endorsed these groundbreaking efforts.

As for history, I will also note the recent French decision to promote Alfred Dreyfus, who figured in perhaps the most famous court-martial of all time, to the rank of brigadier general—sadly, long after this death. That action dramatically shows how the past and present remain closely linked in the field of military justice.

Much remains to be done, and as you read the papers assembled here, I hope you will think about military justice issues and areas that particularly merit further consideration. What challenges will emerge from events like the conflicts in eastern Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere? Will the Commonwealth Principles and Model Law spark renewed interest in military justice reform in non-Commonwealth countries? Are the Decaux Principles and related Yale Draft dead, or may we hope that they too will attract new interest? Or, given the current struggle between democratic and autocratic forces playing out in so many places around the world lead to new challenges. Will hard-fought reforms, such as those enacted in the United States in restricting the power of commanders to decide who shall be prosecuted for what, be built upon or unraveled? No one has a crystal ball, but the combination of historical and contemporary scholarship presented in Paris in 2025 cannot help but inform future developments.

Admirals in Court -- summer reading

Ahoy. For summer reading, see Matthew Barrett, "Review of "Admirals in Court: Discipline, Honour and Naval Justice, 1778-1814" by John Morrow," 35 Can. Mil. Hist. 1 (2026). Excerpt:

The controversial execution of Admiral John Byng on 14 March 1757 inspired Voltaire’s oft-quoted remark regarding the British Navy, “in this country it is found good, from time to time, to kill one Admiral to encourage the others." Byng had been court martialled for failing to do his utmost to engage the French fleet at the Battle of Minorca during the Seven Years’ War. He was sentenced to death by firing squad as mandated by the Articles of War. Only an amendment over two decades later would permit alternative lesser punishments for this type of offence before the enemy (p. 10). While no other British admiral suffered the extreme penalty after Byng, nine flag officers were tried by courts martial for offences ranging from military misconduct to personal impropriety during the period between 1778 and 1814. In Admirals in Court, John Morrow of the University of Auckland studies each court martial case in compelling detail and traces how the proceedings and outcomes reveal much about the British Navy’s historical culture and its understanding of duty and discipline. 

HRW: Peru, veto military justice bill

Human Rights Watch has issued the folowing news release:

Peru: Veto Military Justice Bill

Would Open the Door to Impunity for Abusive Police, Armed Forces Personnel

Peruvian President José María Balcázar should veto a bill that would expand the military justice system, Human Rights Watch said today. The bill would effectively open the door to impunity for police officers and members of the armed forces responsible for human rights violations. 

On June 23, 2026, Congress passed a bill that would modify the Military Police Criminal Code, expanding the definition of “service-related offenses,” which are handled by the military justice system. Military courts lack the independence and impartiality to adequately investigate human rights violations by security forces. Judges and prosecutors, appointed by the president, hold military rank. The changes would benefit, among others, police and military officers responsible for the killings of dozens of protesters and bystanders during demonstrations in late 2022 and early 2023.

“This bill is a recipe for impunity,” said Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Signing this bill into law would give current members of the police and the military carte blanche to commit new human rights violations.”

Under the Peruvian constitution, President Balcázar has 15 days to decide what to do with the bill after Congress sends it to his office for signing. That period ends on July 17. If Balcázar lets the 15 days pass without either signing or vetoing the bill, Congress is allowed to sign it into law. If he returns the bill to Congress, the legislation would be considered by the newly elected bicameral Congress, which takes office on July 28 and would need an absolute majority to pass the law. 

The bill expands the definition of “service-related offenses” to include any crime committed by the military or the police “in the context of a state of emergency”. 

The bill would also require the Supreme Court to “give preference to the military police jurisdiction” when resolving jurisdictional disputes.

“Welfare provision into a dead letter”, Supreme Court of India awards back wages to CRPF constable who was discharged due to disability

Live Law has reported, that the Supreme Court of India awarded INR 1.25 crore (Indian Rupees 12.5 million) to a Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF") constable, who was unlawfully discharged on account of losing his eyesight during service due to an ophthalmic condition in 1996. The State submitted that, the constable lost his right to be reinstated under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 since he opted for grant of Disability Pension. Further, it was claimed that his reinstatement was barred since the application of above Act was exempted for the CRPF in year 2002 by Notification. 

The Apex Court rejected the above submissions. Critical of the apathetic conduct of the State, the Court observed that as a model-employer they should have been aware of their statutory obligations & provided an alternate role to the constable suitable to his disability by themselves. 

Accordingly, the Court directed that the Constable be paid INR 1.25 crore (Indian Rupees 12.5 million) , towards back wages, interest, and costs. The decision affirms Section 47 of the PwD Act, 1995, which forbids discrimination against any government employee based on their disability, acquired during the course of service.

The Tragedy of Master-Corporal Shaun Orton

Sarah Orton’s life changed forever shortly after 9 a.m. on 21 April 2024.

Alarmed by a series of overnight messages from her husband, Master-Corporal Shaun Orton, she contacted the Military Police to request an urgent welfare check. His messages suggested that he was “spiralling out of control and needing help.”[1]

Master-Corporal Orton had previously served with the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry before transferring to the Intelligence Branch in Ottawa, where he worked as a defence intelligence analyst. He had also completed a one-year deployment to Kuwait in support of Operation IMPACT.[2]

“A welfare check involves police officers verifying the well-being of an individual when there are concerns about their physical or mental health.”[3]

Ms. Orton alleges that the military police repeatedly dismissed her concerns and unreasonably delayed initiating a welfare check.[4]

“And now he's not answering and I'm just wondering if somebody could do a mental health check on him,” she told the MP sergeant answering her call. Her husband hadn’t responded to any of her messages or phone calls for two hours.[5]

Instead of dispatching military police, the sergeant gave Ms. Orton a phone number for her husband’s unit and told her the unit was responsible for his wellness check. It was Sunday and every call she made went unanswered or directly to voicemail, nor could she reach anyone at any of the other numbers she tried. After exhausting every avenue available to her, she turned to the Ottawa Police Service for help. 

Ottawa police arrived 10 minutes later and tried to resuscitate him, but MCpl Orton was later pronounced dead at the hospital.[6]

Just before 2 p.m. that same day, Ottawa police Constable Parsons called the MP sergeant to ask why a wellness check had not been conducted earlier. He was told that there were only two officers on duty covering the entire National Capital Region, "so we’re very limited," according to the call transcript. Parsons said police were "definitely concerned," and a crisis worker who was by then involved in the case wanted to "go out and do a door knock."[7]

Constable Parsons’ call to the Military Police took place about five hours after Ms. Orton’s first call to the MPs at nine a.m. for a wellness check on her husband.  It took more than six hours for military police to finally conduct the wellness check.[8]

Ms. Orton asserts that military police "repeatedly dismissed her concerns."[9]

Military Police Complaints Commission chief Tammy Tremblay, in her explanation for convening a public interest hearing, alleges that when they finally agreed to check on her husband, military police stood outside his house for 45 minutes before going inside.[10]

MCpl Orton’s welfare check became a race against time in which the military police seemed unwilling to leave the starting line. The machinery of the military police slowed to a stop, ignoring that a person’s life hung in the balance.

"[Ms. Orton] also noted that the military police detachment commanding officer sent a priest to provide her spiritual support without asking her permission and even though she had made known that she was Jewish," MPCC chief Tammy Tremblay wrote in her decision.[11]

Ms. Orton found her husband’s 10-page suicide note that military police had misplaced while removing his body. The MPs did not accompany her husband to the hospital nor notify her of his death. Neither did they take a noose or pills from the house as evidence. She had difficulty in obtaining information and updates from the military police.[12]

On 11 June 2024, Mrs. Orton filed a conduct complaint with the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM). On 30 July 2024, the CFPM decided to close the file without investigating the complaint in favour of conducting a criminal investigation of the responding military police by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.[13]

The criminal investigation concluded in March and no criminal charges or service discipline charges were laid, according to the Provost Marshal's office. A Military Police Professional Code of Conduct investigation has now been launched to decide if administrative action should be taken against responding military police, the office said.[14]

In response to an inquiry, The Observatory was told: "A Military Police Professional Code of Conduct investigation was initiated on 18 March 2025 and concluded in September 2025. The subject of the Code of Conduct investigation was subsequently referred to the Military Police Credential Review Board. Consideration by the Board was held in abeyance pending the conclusion of the Military Police Complaints Commission Public Interest Hearing, which concluded on or about 15 May 2026.

"The Military Police Credential Review Board will now proceed with its review and will make a recommendation to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal regarding whether the member should retain their policing credentials. A date for the Board’s review has not yet been established."[15]

Ms. Orton's complaint also said when military police found MCpl Orton's body, they called civilian police who discovered he was still alive and began first aid. 

Complainants may request an MPCC review of a conduct complaint if they are not satisfied with the disposal of the complaint by the CFPM. On 25 September 2024, Ms. Orton took her concerns to the MPCC to review her complaint.[16]

On 30 April 2025, M^e Tremblay rendered a decision to hold a rare Public Interest Hearing. The Chairperson cited the following important factors that motivated her decision: 

     The seriousness of the allegations, which, if substantiated, could amount to a failure in performing a timely and effective welfare check—potentially preventing a tragic loss of life.

         The broader systemic implications and public interest regarding welfare checks and suicide response by police.[17]

“The allegations in this case are very serious. Given the significant public concern surrounding the proper handling of welfare checks, suicide interventions, and risk assessments by military police, I determined that a public hearing would be the most effective, transparent, and appropriate means of conducting this investigation—ensuring accountability and addressing broader systemic issues,” said M^e Tremblay.[18]

In her complaint, MCpl Orton’s wife claims that delays in conducting a welfare check on her husband, in entering the home, and in administering first aid after his body was found, may have contributed to his death. She further claims that the military police mishandled critical evidence: MPs misplaced her husband’s ten-page suicide note which she found, and failed to collect other evidence in the house, including a noose and pills. She also disclosed that she had difficulty in obtaining information and updates from the military police. 

His wife told the commission that he was transported by ambulance to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.  Military police did not go to the hospital or notify MCpl Orton's wife about his death, she told the commission.

The complaint also said Ms. Orton reported struggling to get updates from military police. 

Her complaint alleges military police may have played a role in the death of Master Corporal Shaun Orton in April 2024 by failing to conduct a wellness check sooner and delaying going into his home and performing first aid. 

"The allegations in this complaint are serious," wrote the watchdog's chairperson Tammy Tremblay in her decision to hold a public hearing.

"If substantiated, they could amount to a failure to conduct a welfare check in an adequate and timely manner which could have potentially saved a life."

 

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandates “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Canada’s military police failed MCpl Orton, like they have failed so many others, including Corporal Stuart Langridge, and Major Cristian Hiestand. Also left hanging from the yardarm of their incompetence and malfeasance are a dozen generals and admirals stigmatized by allegations of wrongdoing for which the military police and its subsidiary, the CF National Investigation Service, could find no evidence.

In MCpl Orton’s case, the military police response functioned like a command structure severed from its troops -- every transmission was received and acknowledged, but none acted upon. While Sarah Orton raced against time, the military police moved with the indifference of a glacier—slow, impersonal, and utterly unmoved by the human tragedy unfolding before them.

Perhaps it is time for the Canadian military justice system to be swept into the dustbin of history as a failed effort; for the military police to be relegated to physical security at DND bases, stations and facilities; for real police work to be left to real police.

-30-  

References

Burke, Ashley. “Call Transcripts Shed Light on Military Police’s Alleged Mishandling of Suicide.” CBC News, May 9, 2026. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-police-watchdog-public-hearing-alleged-mishandling-suicide-case-9.7193432.

Burke, Ashley. “Military Police Watchdog Calling Rare Public Hearing into Alleged Mishandling of Suicide Case.” CBC News, May 21, 2025. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-watchdog-public-hearing-alleged-negligence-1.7540068.

Government of Canada, Military Police Complaints Commission. “Decision to Conduct a Public Interest Hearing (MPCC-2024-037).” March 2, 2023. https://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/public-interest-investigations-and-hearings-enquetes-et-audiences-dinteret-public/orton-hearing-audience/pii-eip-2024-037-decision-to-conduct-a-hearing-decision-de-tenir-une-audience-eng.html.

Government of Canada, Military Police Complaints Commission. “Orton Public Interest Hearing (MPCC-2024-037) - Homepage.” January 18, 2024. https://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/public-interest-investigations-and-hearings-enquetes-et-audiences-dinteret-public/orton-hearing-audience/pii-eip-2024-037-index-eng.html.

“Shaun Vincent Orton (obituary) | Beechwood.” July 9, 1979. https://qa.beechwoodottawa.ca/en/services/shaun-vincent-orton.

The Canadian Press. “Rare Hearings Wrap on an Alleged Mishandling of Suicide by Military Police | Canada’s National Observer: Climate News.” May 15, 2026. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2026/05/15/news/rare-hearings-wrap-alleged-mishandling-suicide-military-police.

 

---

[1] Burke, Ashley. “Call Transcripts Shed Light on Military Police’s Alleged Mishandling of Suicide.” CBC News, May 9, 2026. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-police-watchdog-public-hearing-alleged-mishandling-suicide-case-9.7193432.

 

[2] “Shaun Vincent Orton | Beechwood.” July 9, 1979. https://qa.beechwoodottawa.ca/en/services/shaun-vincent-orton.

[3] Government of Canada, Military Police Complaints Commission. “Decision to Conduct a Public Interest Hearing (MPCC-2024-037).” March 2, 2023. https://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/public-interest-investigations-and-hearings-enquetes-et-audiences-dinteret-public/orton-hearing-audience/pii-eip-2024-037-decision-to-conduct-a-hearing-decision-de-tenir-une-audience-eng.html.

 

[4] Government of Canada, Military Police Complaints Commission. “Decision to Conduct a Public Interest Hearing (MPCC-2024-037).” March 2, 2023. https://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/public-interest-investigations-and-hearings-enquetes-et-audiences-dinteret-public/orton-hearing-audience/pii-eip-2024-037-decision-to-conduct-a-hearing-decision-de-tenir-une-audience-eng.html.

[5] Burke. Call transcripts shed light.

[6] Ibid..

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Burke, Ashley. “Military Police Watchdog Calling Rare Public Hearing into Alleged Mishandling of Suicide Case.” CBC News, May 21, 2025. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-watchdog-public-hearing-alleged-negligence-1.7540068.

[10] Burke, Ashley. “Military Police Watchdog Calling Rare Public Hearing

[11] MPCC. “Decision to Conduct a Public Interest Hearing.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Government of Canada, Military Police Complaints Commission. “Orton Public Interest Hearing (MPCC-2024-037) - Homepage.” January 18, 2024. https://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/public-interest-investigations-and-hearings-enquetes-et-audiences-dinteret-public/orton-hearing-audience/pii-eip-2024-037-index-eng.html.

[14] Burke. “Military Police Watchdog.”

[15] Email: Major Brigitte Van Hende, Public Affairs Officer - Office of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

 to The Observatory, 14 July 2026.

[16] MPCC. “Orton Public Interest Hearing (MPCC-2024-037)…” 

[17] Ibid.

[18] Tremblay, “Decision to Conduct a Public Interest Hearing (MPCC-2024-037).

No conscientious objection in Ukraine in wartime

 This article from Eurasia Review reports:

• Ukraine Is Aggressively Prosecuting Conscientious Objectors — Prosecutors have launched over 1,000 criminal cases against men (mostly Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Baptists, and Orthodox) whose applications for alternative civilian service were rejected, with about 500 cases reaching court.
• Hundreds Are Jailed or Held in Military Bases — At least 24 conscientious objectors are currently serving prison sentences, with 7 awaiting appeals and 21 in pre-trial detention. Hundreds more (including ~300 Seventh-day Adventists and 50 Council of Churches Baptists) are being held against their will on military bases, often facing pressure and torture.
• No Alternative Service During Wartime — Despite martial law and UN concern, Ukraine’s Defence Ministry insists alternative civilian service does not exist during wartime. A promised new law to allow it has not yet reached Parliament, despite a June 2026 deadline. Courts are handing down prison terms of 3–6 years under various Criminal Code articles.

The case of the vanishing disciplinary records

Defence Forces TribunalBinse Óglaigh na hÉireann

"The Defence Forces Tribunal has been told that the record of all official warnings against every officer in the Defence Forces was deleted in 1992." The Irish Examiner has the story here.

Civilianization -- a dirty word in Colombia?

Consider Semana's article headlined "Purge in the Military and Police Criminal Justice System: The Petro Government swept away Public Force officials and brought in civilians." Excerpt:

In hushed tones and with surgical precision, President Gustavo Petro's government has allegedly dismantled the Military and Police Criminal Justice System (JPMP). The weakening of this justice system for members of the Armed Forces is believed to have been orchestrated by former Defense Minister Iván Velásquez and one of his closest associates, the current director of the JPMP, José Reyes Rodríguez.

CAAF Rules Guide 25th

The 2026 (25th!) edition of the unofficial Guide to the Rules of Practice and Procedure for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is now available from LexisNexis. As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.

The editors for this edition are Dwight H. Sullivan, Franklin D. Rosenblatt, Max Jesse Goldberg, Marcus N. Fulton, and Eugene R. Fidell.

The Broken Contract Between the State and Those Who Serve

A provactive paper by Dr Robert Parr MBE AKC,* BROKEN CONTRACT: The Legal Abandonment of British Armed Forces Personnel and the Case for Sovereign Military Operations Framework.

*Visiting Research Fellow, Changing Character of War Centre, Pembroke College, University of Oxford

ABSTRACT

British armed forces personnel are governed by a legal framework that no government designed, no Parliament deliberately enacted, and no operational commander can coherently apply. The progressive and unplanned conflation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL)— accelerated by extraterritorial extension of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) through the Strasbourg Court's post-2001 jurisprudence — has produced structural conditions of legal incoherence in which personnel may simultaneously comply with IHL and violate IHRL, without either framework providing the clarity or protection that operational command requires. Inevitably and foreseeably, this conflation has coincided with the changing nature of modern war, creating a toxic environment in which our armed forces have to navigate legal complexity whilst shouldering an inappropriate burden of legal risk. This paper argues that this incoherence is not primarily a legal problem. It is a political problem: a product of successive governments' failure to construct a coherent sovereign framework for military operations, to use available derogation mechanisms, and to honour the through-life contract between the state and those who serve it. The paper identifies that failure as a mechanism of betrayal — not merely of individual service personnel and veterans, but of national security itself. The paper advances a programme of parallel reconstruction built around two complementary instruments. The first is a sovereign Military Operations Act, providing domestic legal authority for lethal force and detention in both international and non-international armed conflict, both home and overseas, through ministerial authorisation, a triple-gateway prosecutorial filter; the establishment of an Expert Military Panel; and strict time limits on investigation — expressly disapplying the UK Human Rights Act (HRA) in the military operations

context by a statutory primacy clause, with full ECHR withdrawal reserved as the outer option if Strasbourg challenge follows. It is argued that the current unlimited burden of potential liability carried by our soldiers justifies this novel legal provision. The second instrument is the statutory crystallisation of the Armed Forces Covenant into a soldier/state through-life contract, transforming it from aspiration into an enforceable legal instrument. These are the instruments of a dual strategy: mutually supportive and equally essential.

The paper seems to exist in the Oxford Univ. Research Archive. Interestingly, it is referenced in JusticeForVeterans.uk. And we learn that Dr. Parr is a former active-duty Real Marine and Special Forces officer.