Does what happens in the barracks stay there? (A note from Switzerland)

The Tribune de Genève has the story here -- with a good summary of Swiss military justice to boot. (Google Translate does a good job withv this.) Excerpt:

If the conviction that concerns you appears on your son's criminal record, he will need to be aware of it in certain situations in his daily life. A prospective employer may request a criminal record extract, particularly for sensitive positions. However, the criminal record extract available to individuals is more limited than the one accessible to authorities. Furthermore, entries are not permanent: they are automatically removed after a certain period, which depends on the seriousness of the offense.

Your son can request his own criminal record extract to know exactly what is included. This will allow him to better anticipate situations where his past might be examined and to prepare contextualized explanations if necessary.

Ultimately, a military conviction is not necessarily a dead end for civilian life. It all depends on its nature and severity. In many cases, the impact remains limited, especially if your son now demonstrates exemplary behavior.

Is Pakistan's 27th Amendment to the Constitution constitutional?

The Lahore High Court Bar Association thinks not, and that as a result, the intra-court appeals concerning the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over civilians must be returned from the new Federal Constitutional Court to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Details from the bar's submission can be found here. Excerpt from Dawn's report:

The application contended that the 27th Ame­ndment was in violation of the salient and essential features of the Constitution, stating that the 1973 Constitution defined the powers of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.

“While parliament possesses the power to amend the Constitution, it does not function as a constituent assembly and is subject to both express and implied limitations,” it added.

The application pointed out that the jurisprudence of the SC — most recently the authoritative 17-member judgement in the Rawalpindi District Bar Association case — had affirmed that parliament could not, through any amendment, alter or abrogate the salient or essential features of the Constitution, including the independence of the judiciary.

The application pleaded that both the 26th and 27th amendments impermissibly encroached upon judicial independence and restructured the constitutional architecture in a manner inconsistent with these unamendable features. Therefore, they constituted an invalid exercise of amendatory power.

It argued that a constitutional amendment, which undermined judicial independence while simultaneously divesting pre-existing constitutional courts of jurisdiction to examine its validity, violated fundamental constitutional principles.

“If permitted, parliament can abolish or replace the forum for constitutional adjudication at will, thereby insulating unconstitutional amendments from judicial scrutiny,” the plea feared.

The application further noted that the SC had consistently distinguished betw­een “jurisdiction” and “judicial power”.

“Even where parliament modifies jurisdiction, judicial power — i.e. the authority to determine whether jurisdiction exists — remains inherent in the superior judiciary,” it read.

“Accordingly, notwithstanding the 27th Amendment, it lies within the judicial power of the SC to determine whether it has been validly divested of jurisdiction. The subject appeal must therefore be restored to the SC for that purpose.”

Reform proposed for Nigerian military justice

A bill to reform Nigerian military justice has passed its second reading in the Senate, according to this report. Excerpt:

Under the bill, such reports will now be submitted to a court of law for review before any conviction can be upheld.

The proposed legislation also prohibits undue command interference in courts-martial, guarantees due process, and strengthens independence and fairness within the military justice system.

The Armed Forces (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill, 2025, sponsored by Senator Abdulaziz Yar’Adua, aims to modernise military law, uphold the supremacy of the Constitution, and align Nigeria’s Armed Forces with global standards of accountability, discipline, and professionalism.

The Sde Teiman Case (another in the series)

Noam Kozlov has written this post for Just Security on Persecuting the Prosecutors: Israel’s Military Lawyers Under Pressure. Excerpt:

At this point, it is crucial to highlight that safeguarding the Israeli MAG [Military Advocate General] is in the best interest of everyone who values the rule of law, regardless of their broader views on the conflict. Even for those who believe Israel is unwilling or unable to investigate itself, especially with respect to high-ranking officials, the capacity of international tribunals to effectively and timely investigate and prevent violations is, at best, limited. The authority of the MAG within the IDF enables it to influence policy in real-time, not only enforcing but also preventing violations of international law. In this regard, a functioning internal review mechanism cannot be fully replaced by an international body, which has inherently limited resources and access to enforce compliance in real-time. Even when it comes to holding violators accountable, international institutions naturally face limitations in access to information and evidence, and cannot meaningfully replace an effective internal investigative system.

That said, the Israeli MAG seems to be increasingly unable to fulfill its duties in holding violators accountable, partly due to political pressures, including from certain government officials. Therefore, it is essential for Israeli leaders, both in the military and civilian sectors, to safeguard the legitimacy and independence of the MAG; Israel’s allies should also emphasize the critical role the MAG plays in their ongoing cooperation with Israel. Additionally, members of the international law community must voice their support for a robust and independent MAG. As noted above, dismissing the role of the Israeli MAG would be counterproductive; while the MAG faces significant and growing challenges to performing its duties independently and effectively, there is no fully adequate alternative to an internal compliance institution.

Finally, the Sde Teiman case demonstrates that many in the MAG still value the rule of law and the enforcement of international norms, including the officers involved in the investigation and the higher chain of command that authorized and supported them. This is said regardless of whether Yerushalmi should have acted differently with respect to the leak and cover-up. Ultimately, the Sde Teiman soldiers accused of abusing prisoners were indicted with charges of aggravated battery and abuse, and their trial is still ongoing. Therefore, while many changes are needed in the MAG, there is hope, and an urgent need, that the MAG will once again uphold the rule of law and enforce humanitarian duties during war.

Mr. Kozlov concludes: "These dynamics demonstrate the role of the MAG in upholding the rule of law in Israel as part of the broader judicial apparatus. The weakening of the MAG affects not only the IDF’s ability to carry out its missions lawfully, but also the broader protection of the rule of law in Israel." American readers may see some resonance with the current administration's stance with respect to the Judge Advocates General and their responsibilities.

Reforming India's grievance redress system

In India, the fundamental rights of the members of the Forces (Armed Forces and the Central Paramilitary/Armed Police Forces) are restricted by Article 33 of the Constitution to ensure the proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline among them. They are denied the right to be members of trade unions or associations, to attend political meetings and to communicate with the press. The State has, however, bestowed on them the right to make complaints seeking the redress of their grievances. The provision for the redress of grievances is contained in the Army Act, 1950 and is similar in the other two services. The Regulations of the three services, however, provide different procedures for the processing of grievance petitions; thus, damaging the effectiveness of a statutory right.

Shortcomings in the grievance redress system are as follows:

Inordinate Delays: The time-frame for processing of a grievance petition is too long, and is different in the case of each service. For instance, in the case of the Army, when the complaint does not contain any accusation requiring investigation, it is required to reach the Army headquarters within 135 days. If the complainant has made an accusation requiring investigation, the complaint should reach the headquarters within 180 to 195 days. Moreover, the Regulations do not provide any time-frame for the Army Headquarters or the Central Government to give its final decision in the matter. The length of time taken in giving a decision also causes significant distraction to the affected persons and their peers. When it takes a long-time to resolve a grievance petition, members may also feel that the complaint is not being taken seriously. This can cause discontent at unit level and the delay in the finalization of a complaint frustrates the very purpose of the system.

Faulty Processing: During the processing of a complaint, the complainant is not informed about the comments of the section commander and intermediate authorities on his grievance application. In the case of Union of India v. Maj Gen Arun Roye (2008), the Calcutta High Court opined: “…non-furnishing of comments of the intermediate authorities to the complainant who lodged the statutory complaint is tantamount to violation of the principles of natural justice. This is because the comments that are furnished by the intermediate authorities to the Central Government are essential to the complainant, so as to enable that person to know what has been commented against him/her by the said military authority while forwarding the complaint to the Government.” 

Decision is not ‘reasoned’: The decision on an application is not required to be a “reasoned” order and it could be conveyed in a brief sentence, such as: “Your application has been rejected by the competent authority as being devoid of merit.” Stereotype rejection orders reinforce the doubt that complaints are treated arbitrarily and against the principles of natural justice. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has held that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The rejection of a grievance, in the absence of any reasoning, indicates either that the authority did not listen or that it took an arbitrary decision. For reasons of transparency, a judgement must assure that appropriate care has been given while taking the decision, and that outcome is not the result of improper motives. The reason given for a judgement plays a significant role in demonstrating that the person concerned has actually been heard.       

Coercive Provisions: In the Army, if a complainant has made an accusation in the grievance petition, he/she is required to render a certificate, “I undertake that any false statement or false accusation made by me in this complaint will render me liable for disciplinary action.” In cases of the use of abusive language, misbehaviour and sexual harassment, which may take place in private, it may not be possible for a victim to support his/her accusation with any documentary proof or witness. Then the victim would be liable to disciplinary action under section 56(b) of the Army Act, based on the certificate rendered with his/her petition, where maximum punishment could be up to 5 years of imprisonment. This often deters the victim from seeking redress and makes the statutory right meaningless. Similar provisions do not exist in the regulations of the Navy or the Air Force.

Legal Help and Harassment: All levels of the military hierarchy are entitled to seek legal advice on a complaint. However, the aggrieved person is not provided any legal help for preferring his complaint. The persons objected to may participate in disposing of the objection. If the grievance is against the higher authorities, the affected individual or his family may also face social seclusion and harassment. There have been allegations that those lodging complaints against their superiors have been transferred to far-flung places, causing harassment to them and their family members.

Increasing number of court cases: There has been an unusual increase in the filing of writ petitions and civil suits by the men in uniform, which demonstrates a gradual erosion of faith in the grievance redressal system in the Forces. The large number of cases that have come up before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the superior civil courts in recent years show that the grievance redress system of the defence forces has not only been moving at a very slow pace, but has also not been able to satisfy the aspirations of men in uniform.