Espionage and unlawful command influence in Peru

Defense Minister Pedro Cateriano

Readers may already know there is a case brewing right now in which Peruvian officers are suspected of having spied for Chile. One report quotes the Peruvian Defense Minister in a way that smacks of unlawful command influence:

“We urge the military justice system to act swiftly and if it finds them responsible to apply the maximum penalty,” said [Defense Minister Pedro] Cateriano in a press statement.

(Emphasis added.) Another report (from Andina) provides additional quotations:

Cateriano demanded a “final and severe” sanction for Navy personnel involved, if liabilities are proved.

“This is a condemnable act. It is shameful that non-commissioned officers of the Armed Forces may have contributed to this kind of information leak […] We urge the Military Justice to act fast. If [corresponding] liabilities are proved, it must impose effective penalties with the utmost severity,” he told.

During a press conference, Minister Cateriano added this administration demands "firmness," and a pure and “fair” “application of law.”

The revolt of the Guantánamo judges

There's been yet another startling development at Guantánamo. According to this Miami Herald account by Carol Rosenberg, the judge presiding over the al-Nashiri case (involving the USS Cole attack) has disqualified the convening authority for military commissions and four of his immediate staff. The basis for doing so is their role in the recently-rescinded rule change requiring the judges to be physically present at Guantánamo until the trials are complete. Last week another commission judge ordered the abatement of proceedings in the 9/11 cases.

Canadian sexual assault charge dismissed for lack of military nexus

In R v. Thibault, 2015 CM 1001, a Standing Court Martial presided over by Colonel Mario Dutil, Chief Military Judge, declined jurisdiction to try the infantry corporal accused of sexual assault of a female corporal – a member of the Military Police - in August 2011 in a private residence.

This decision  followed the ruling made by the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada in Moriarity v. Canada, 2014 CMAC 1, which held that military prosecutions before military tribunals can only take place when the requirement for military nexus is satisfied. In the absence of a such a military nexus, an accused's constitutional right to a jury trial before a civilian court should be respected. Of note, an appeal of the Moriarity case is scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada on May 12, 2015.

See press report (en langue française):  La cour martiale refuse d'entendre une affaire d'aggression sexuelle.

Whoops -- wrong courthouse

It must have been an odd moment at the Rouen Criminal Court, in France. That court had enjoyed jurisdiction over military cases, but when two such cases were called for hearing, imagine everyone's surprise when the presiding judge announced that the court no longer had jurisdiction, as of last January 1, and the cases would now have to be transferred to the court in Lille. Here is the story (en français) from Paris Normandie.

« Désolé messieurs », détaille en substance le tribunal correctionnel, « mais la formation militaire de la juridiction n’a plus d’existence. C’est regrettable mais c’est ainsi. Désormais, tous les dossiers doivent être transférés en l’état au tribunal de Lille ». Rompez! [Dismissed!]

By the numbers

Once again, we have passed a milestone, so it's time to do the numbers.

As of today, Global Military Justice Reform has had 100,068 hits from readers in 137 jurisdictions. We have had 1354 posts from a growing list of contributors, and 186 comments. Significantly, we are now able to monitor more effectively reform developments in the Spanish-speaking world. Our China coverage continues to be noteworthy. One relatively recent innovation is our use of Twitter -- @globalmjreform -- as a force multiplier.

Many thanks to everyone who has brought the blog to this point in only 13 months.