Executive Summary:

In the ongoing debate among politicians and human rights activists regarding the reform of the military justice and its jurisdiction, the law continues to allow civilians to be tried before military courts. Such trials deprive civilians of essential judicial safeguards, as military judges often fail to provide explanations for their decisions, thereby shielding the judiciary from meaningful legal oversight. This debate is divided between two main positions. One advocates for abolishing military justice in civilian cases entirely, limiting its scope to disciplinary matters involving military personnel (Legal Agenda, 2024).  The other argues for reconstituting military courts with justices of the peace, rather than military officers, to enhance fairness and transparency (Boutros, Saghiyeh, 2018).

This report discusses these paradoxes by contextualizing the debate within its historical and legal framework. It draws on desk reviews and interviews with lawyers and human rights defenders, alongside an analysis of four case studies highlighting violations and the lack of conformity within military courts. Based on these findings, the report proposes recommendations aimed at ensuring a minimum standard of fairness in military court proceedings. It is of note that civilians standing trial before military courts violate international standards.  The Decaux Principles (Callejon, 2006; Weill, Sharon, Robinson, Mitch (2017) prohibit the trial of civilians by military courts and extend to specific offenses committed by members of the military and security forces, even when performed in the line of duty.

Full Report.