Military capital cases come under scrutiny in Lahore High Court

The Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court has stayed execution of five individuals who were sentenced to hang by courts-martial. The Nation reports:

Justice Arshad Mehmood Tabassum suspended the execution of death sentence and ordered the military authorities to hand over copies of military court proceedings to the said five persons, who would remain detained at Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat Jail until next hearing.

The federal government however challenged the stay order saying the counsel of the convicts, Laeeq Khan Swati, had concealed all the facts before the court. Standing Counsel for government Chaudhry Masroof in his application claimed that all the legal requirements were followed during the course of proceedings and the decision was given on merit. He requested the court to withdraw the stay order.

*  *  * 

. . . Swati argued in the court that Article 10-A of the constitution guaranteed the right of fair trial to all citizens. He claimed that military authorities had not provided any lawyer to his clients during the trial. He said their trial was conducted by Field General Court Martial and later their appeals were dismissed by the military court without providing the accused with copies of proceedings and the judgment. Similarly, he claimed, their appeals were dismissed by the military court of appeals without providing them a chance to defend themselves.

*  *  * 

“All these five men were not tried fairly and even lawyer was not provided to them. This is clear cut violation of Article 10-A of the constitution,” [advocate Col (r) Inam-ur-Rahim, Lahore High Court Bar Association Rawalpindi missing persons coordinator] said. He said that as per military representative claim that these five persons were facing murder charges; the military court could not try them as they were civilians.

Turkey considering military justice legislation

Hurriyet Daily News reports on a legislative proposal that would alter the legal regime for military personnel, distinguishing between the most senior officers and everyone else:

The Turkish Prime Minister will have the final word on whether the Chief of General Staff will be tried by civilian courts for incidents and decisions related to his position, according to a new draft bill sent to Parliament by the government. 

*  *  *

Prosecution against the Chief of General Staff and Commanders-in-Chief of the armed forces will only be allowed with the permission of the Prime Minister. The civilian courts will also have to take permission from the Interior Minister to prosecute commanders of the gendarmerie forces and the Coast Guard Command. The rest of the military personnel will be prosecuted in civilian courts, with the permission of the Defense Minister, according to the draft bill. The Defense Minister will chair the Military Judges Board, which will be composed of four judges appointed by the Prime Minister among the names proposed by the Defense Minister. This board will make decisions on the enrollment rights of military personnel, as well as deciding on suspensions and discipline penalties.

The bill also amends the “death penalties” in the Military Penal Code into the “aggravated life sentences.”  

Civilians will not be tried in military courts, with the exception of being in a state of war.

Collateral review of courts-martial in Pakistan

Whether the civilian courts can review courts-martial for basic fairness turns out to be at issue in Pakistan, according to this article in pt. Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Fazal Haq Abbasi says:

“There is no specific law regarding a civilian who gets convicted in military courts. Article 10-A of the constitution gives surety of a fair trial. High courts possibly can interfere in any case if the culprits are not given fair trial.”

Canadian CDS offers retired Army Reservist broad-range apology for her treatment following her complaint of sexual assault

Ottawa, Canada.  In an unprecedented decision, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) apologized to a retired Army Reservist for a range of illegal punitive measures taken against her after she reported her sexual assault in 2012.  General Thomas J. Lawson provided retired Master Corporal Stephanie Raymond with a broad-ranging apology for the several adverse administrative procedures taken by her then chain of command which led to her being illegally discharged from the Canadian military in December 2013. Raymond's sexual assault received national attention when details of her case were published as a cover story in MacLeans' magazine in May 2014 [See link below]. The trial of her alleged assailant took place in August and its verdict is now under review by the Canadian Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC). [See link below]

.See link:  Report by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Canadian Armed Forces Chief of the Defence Staff says Raymond firing based on fraudulent documents

See link to  MacLean's Magazine: Our military's disgrace. May 16, 2014

MacLean's investigative report led the CDS to order an 'external review' of the military's workplace programmes and policies, and leadership engagement.  This review being conducted by a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada focuses on the esoteric or abstract world of doctrine, policies, ethos, standards.  It other words, only what is contained within the military catechism and not such serious issues as the failings and weaknesses of the military justice system including the investigating and prosecuting of sexual assault when law and order are breached and the leadership acts in an impotent manner

Pakistan military courts for civilians? Maybe not

The Express Tribune reports that the proposal floated only a few days ago to permit military courts to try civilians in the wake of the Peshawar school attack may not be moving forward after all. [Editorial comment: phew.] Some details from Kamran Yousaf's account:

[A] senior government official told The Express Tribune that the idea was now being given a second thought in the wake of reservations by the army.

The official, who asked to remain anonymous, said it was not possible for the army to carry out judicial work given that security forces had already been overstretched due to the ongoing operations in tribal areas.

The army instead proposed the government to address shortcomings in the existing judicial system that often allows hardcore terrorists to go scot-free, the official added.

Col (retd) Inaamur Rahim, who served in military’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, noted establishment of military courts would be a “burden” on army.

He explained that a lot of time, energy, manpower and focus would be required for military courts.

“But in present situation it is not possible for the army to focus on judicial and complex legal side,” commented Rahim, who was also coordinator of military courts in 1997 before the Supreme Court turned down Nawaz Sharif’s decision to form parallel judiciary.

The executive should not put this burden on the military, he added.

Besides the allegation of parallel judiciary and trust deficit in case of military courts, it would further enhance security threats for army, he argued.

“I am optimistic military leadership will decline this offer,” he added.

Note the absence of any reference to the fact that trying civilians in military courts runs counter to contemporary human right standards.