Le droit pénal militaire belge

Il n’y a plus en Belgique de juridiction militaire en temps de paix depuis une réforme en 2003. Par contre le droit pénal militaire reste en vigueur. En conséquence, depuis la suppression des juridictions militaire le 1 janvier 2004, les personnes soumises au droit pénal militaire sont jugées devant les juridictions de droit commun qui sont les seules juridictions de droit commun qui sont compétentes.

 Le 17 décembre 2002 l’article 157, alinéa 1^er de la Constitution a été modifié; désormais il ne peut y avoir des  juridictions militaires qu’en temps de guerre. En cas d’infraction commises par des militaires belges à l’étranger, la juridiction belge est compétente territorialement et des actes d’enquête peuvent être accomplies valablement dans ce pays.

Une des principales raisons pour la suppression des juridictions militaires fut que la législation relative à la juridiction militaire s’est avérée insuffisamment respectueuse des droits fondamentaux, notamment le respect du principe constitutionnel d’égalité (des justiciables) et le droit au procès équitable établi par l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. 

Five death sentences handed down in Pakistan's military courts

Secret military courts have sentenced five civilians to death and one to life in prison. Details -- not many -- are available here. The Chief of Army Staff has given his approval.

Postscript: More details on the cases are provided here by the Express Tribune. All six accused are said to have admitted their offenses. The reporting does not indicate whether any of them were acquitted on any charges, where and when they were tried, who if anyone defended them, what legal issues if any were presented, and whether the cases were reviewed by the Court of Military Appeals or would be subject to review by the civilian courts.

Speaking of the civilian courts, the website for the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where a Lahore High Court Bar Association review petition is pending with respect to The Military Courts Case, seems to be down.

Insights into Pakistan's Military Courts Case

From this insightful op-ed by Asma Jahangir in The Statesman:

The judgement shows lack of consensus in Pakistan about some basic issues. The disagreements and opposing trends seen in the 10 legal opinions, delivered by a full court of 17 judges, reflect confusion. Some opinions retain a rigid, retrogressive approach to democracy and political progress; others are open to change. This also represents the national picture. Those craving to move forward are constantly pulled back. 

Most importantly, the judgement was a reminder of the several compromises that have been made by Pakistan’s judiciary over the years. At many times, this has been at the expense of promoting democracy and the rule of law. 

The SC had consistently held it could not sit on judgement on constitutional amendments passed by military dictators or parliament as the law-giver. Often, it was tempted to follow the Supreme Court of India to arrogate to itself the role of defining the basic structure of the Constitution and retain the power to review constitutional amendments, but so far it had resisted. Those challenging the 21st Amendment unanimously opposed military courts trying civilians, but remained divided on granting the SC the power to identify a basic structure of the Constitution that could never be touched.

U.S. response to Danish recommendation to remove chain of command from charging decisions

Among the recommendations made in the course of the current Universal Periodic Review for the United States was the following:

176.289. Improve access to justice, including due process and redress, for victims of sexual violence in the military; this would include removing from the chain of command the decision about whether to prosecute cases of alleged assault (Denmark)

The United States has filed its response to the recommendations. Here is what it said about Denmark's recommendation:

289. DoD has established victim-representation programs for sexual assault victims eligible for legal assistance, consistent with the findings of an independent study concluding that removing proceedings from the chain of command was not needed to improve the situation of victims.

Might the change improve public confidence in the administration of justice?

Postscript: Here is Human Rights Watch's comment on the overall U.S. response to the UPR recommendations.

Justice and secrecy: can Pakistan have both?

"The predominant fear among civil society groups is that the life of military courts might be extended beyond the current two years. But at the same time Pakistan’s civilian courts, including its Supreme Court, had been powerless in getting executive government to enforce their judgments. Now, the entire process is military controlled and carried out in complete secrecy, beginning with the appointment of military judges to the trial itself. Even death sentences are confirmed or commuted by the Chief of Army Staff, who moves with alacrity.

"In a country that has lost thousands in terrorism related crimes it seems that societal peace, not secrecy, is the main issue."

Former Pakistani diplomat  Sajjad Ashraf

writing here in the East Asia Forum