A request

 Greetings.

I am in the process of putting together a project for NIMJ's summer law student interns based on the concept of Restitution as a consequence of a court-martial conviction.

You can help.

There is no statutory or regulatory provision in the U.S. for restitution adjudged, ordered, or as a consequence of a court-martial conviction. There are some creative ways to provide restitution in guilty plea cases, but these options are limited and ad hoc.

I have the perception that various military justice systems around the world has some mechanism to provide restitution to victims of a court-martial offense.

Does your military justice system have such a mechanism? If it does, could you let me know by email at phildcave@gmail.com. We are interested in understanding how the process works, particularly in the enforcement of restitution after the trial. One of the main objections to court-ordered restitution from a U.S. court-martial conviction is a perceived lack of enforceability once the person has been discharged from the service.

The goal is to compile a comparative law information paper for NIMJ.

Thanks.

Delhi High Court (India) upholds dismissal of an Officer for refusing to attend religious ceremonies of other faiths in a multi-faith unit

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of an Officer of the Indian Army who refused to enter the innermost parts of places of worship of other religions during official functions/celebrations held on festivals of those religions.

While not taking any side in the matter, it may be clarified for the readers here that the Indian Army, depending upon troop composition of various regiments, jointly celebrates festivals of various faiths such as Diwali, Christmas, Eid, Gurupurab etc, which troop leaders are expected to attend, even if not directly participating in the religious activities.

The judgment has been reported by Bar & Bench here.

Before proceeding to discuss the merits of the issue, in Para 56 of the judgment, the Delhi High Court states the following:

“At the outset, we salute and acknowledge the dedication of those who guard our borders day and night in adverse conditions. The ethos of our Armed Forces places nation before self; and certainly, nation before religion. Our Armed Forces comprise of personnel of all religions, castes, creeds, regions, and faiths, whose sole motto is to safeguard the country from external aggressions, and, therefore, they are united by their uniform rather than divided by their religion, caste, or region.”

While this case might not be the last word on the issue, it remains to be seen if it is challenged before the Supreme Court of India.

COVID-19 (New Zealand)

Following is a statement issued today by the New Zealand Defence Force:

The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant affirmation of Chief of Defence Force’s (CDF) ability to make important decisions relating to the command of the armed forces - in this case decisions on individual readiness requirements for military personnel. These decisions are essential for ​the New Zealand Defence Force to remain a combat-ready and resilient armed force keeping New Zealand safe and secure. 

The Supreme Court case stemmed from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement that CDF first required of all members of the Armed Forces of New Zealand in March 2021 as part of their individual readiness requirements for deployment.

The Supreme Court said the CDF was appointed under the Defence Act to lead the NZDF and was likely to be in a much better position than the court to evaluate the relevant considerations of orders relating to operational effectiveness and military discipline.

The NZDF continually reviews and determines appropriate baseline medical readiness criteria for personnel including required vaccines in order to protect personnel and enable them to carry out the duties required of them. 

Like a number of other vaccines, the COVID-19 vaccine remains part of the baseline vaccine schedule and is an individual readiness requirement. The Supreme Court’s decision supports the processes under Defence Force orders that apply to a person who cannot meet individual readiness where restrictions on duties and implications for service is considered on a case-by-case basis.

The decision in question is Chief of Defence Force v. Four Members of the Armed Forces, [2025] NZSC 34 (N.Z. Apr. 11, 2025).

Memorial Day 2025

Ball's Bluff National Cemetery
Leesburg, Virginia 

Gag the MAG?

The Jerusalem Post reports here that Israel's Defence Minister has forbidden the Military Advocate General (MAG) to address a bar meeting. Excerpt:

In May 2024, [Maj. Gen. Yifat] Tomer Yerushalmi revealed to the world that the IDF had already opened over 70 criminal probes against its soldiers.

Since then, including recently, the Jerusalem Post has learned that this number is closer to 90, and that there are hundreds of serious operational probes and well over 1,000 preliminary probes.

However, since an interim report in August 2024, the IDF has not issued any public statement on the issue.

In fact, the Post has learned that a public update which was supposed to be issued in early 2025 was also blocked, and there has been no update as to when another public report will be issued.

These moves of preventing public disclosures might serve the government's political fears of being attacked for allowing prosecutions of soldiers, but could also harm Israel in defending itself globally.