A reverse bill of attainder?

Pakistani legislators continue to drag their feet in affording appellate rights to an Indian man who has been sentenced to death, following the consular access decision of the International Court of Justice. The latest objection is that the necessary measure is in effect special legislation that affects only one individual. Details here. Excerpt:

"To me, this law [the International Court of Justice (Review and Reconsideration) Bill, 2021] is person specific. The question arises whether we can pass a law which is person-specific?" observed Barrister Ali Zafar, chair of the committee. Farooq H Naek pointed out that there was no provision to allow review in criminal law.

"Can we bring a new law, if there is no provision in the statute?" Naek questioned. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court does not entertain the judgments of the military courts.

[Kulbhushan] Jadhav, the arrested Indian spy, has been sentenced to death by a military tribunal, whereas the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its July 17, 2019 judgement has called for a review and reconsideration in the military court's decision.

Mian Raza Rabbani pointed out that the government by introducing Jadhav-specific bill provide the ground of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, whereas, Article 36 only deals with consular access. In his observations, the chair of the committee stated: "Obviously, we [Pakistan] have international obligations, but we should also have to look thoroughly into all the observations of the committee members."

À nos chers amis francophones

 

Ah, the cupcake offense

"The chain of command's loss of the cupcake wrappers was so shockingly negligent as to constitute an abuse of process."

That is what the defense counsel, for a Canadian soldier accused "who allegedly fed cannabis-infused cupcakes to an artillery unit before a live-fire exercise[,]" has told the court.

This is interesting, "Canadian Armed Forces members are barred from consuming cannabis eight hours before any known or expected performance of duty." Nope to dope--nada--in the U.S.

I may have mentioned we had a Mess Specialist who put marijuana in the lunch of a ship's wardroom members--in the early 80's.

Thanks Regina-Leader Post.

Stirrings in Uganda's "graveyard of constitutional petitions" -- or a false alarm?

Derrick Kiyonga and Joel Mukisa have written this worthwhile account of Uganda's Constitutional Court, including comments by Global Military Justice Reform contributor Dr. Ronald Naluwairo. The court has a considerable backlog but seems to be starved for administrative resources. About its latest decision, concerning the trial of civilians by courts-martial, the authors suggest that the victory may have left a critical loophole:

Going by the majority judgment, it also clear that there are situations where even after these judgments civilians might be tried under the military court. 

In their final orders, the justices said Section 119(1)(g) of the UPDF Act is not unconstitutional provided the person not otherwise subject to military law is tried as an accomplice together with a person who is subject to military law as the principal offender on the same charge sheet. 

“The Constitutional Court should not be applauded for delivering what is essentially a juristic counterfeit that will continue to expose civilians to the dreaded dungeons of the NRA military junta through arbitrary classification as ‘an accomplice’ of a person subject to military law,” says [democracy and human rights activist Isaac Kimaze] Ssemakadde.

The article chronicles the numerous efforts that have been made over the years to push back against the use of military courts to try civilians. It's too soon to say whether the Constitutional Court's latest ruling is a one-off or marks a turning point. Will it survive appellate review by the Supreme Court? 

More on General Martins's retirement

Carol Rosenberg's story in The New York Times about the surprise retirement of Brigadier General Mark S. Martins, the chief prosecutor at the Guantánamo military commissions, has been augmented with additional information:

General Martins submitted his retirement papers on Wednesday after repeatedly butting heads with Biden administration lawyers over positions his office had taken on the applicable international law and the Convention Against Torture at the Guantánamo court, according to senior government officials with knowledge of the disputes. General Martins did not respond to a request for comment.

A key point of contention was a recent decision by General Martins to use a statement that a man accused of orchestrating the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000 had made to the C.I.A. while being tortured to make a point with the military judge presiding in that case, which is also a death-penalty prosecution. Defense lawyers for the prisoner, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri of Saudi Arabia, are appealing the admissibility of that evidence.

On the same day General Martins chose to retire, he filed a brief asking the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review for extra time to respond to the appeal.

Stand by for additional reporting as more of the surrounding circumstances emerge.