{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1677496,
        "msgid": "expert-at-constitutional-court-trend-in-europe-to-abolish-military-courts-during-peacetime-1776178246",
        "date": "2026-04-14 20:32:43",
        "title": "Expert at Constitutional Court: Trend in Europe to Abolish Military Courts During Peacetime",
        "author": "",
        "source": "CNN_ID",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "Experts testifying at Indonesia's Constitutional Court highlighted a growing European trend towards integrating or eliminating military courts in peacetime, advocating for civilian courts to handle all cases, including those involving military personnel, to uphold human rights and the rule of law. They criticised Indonesia's 1997 Military Court Law, enacted under the authoritarian New Order regime, for enabling impunity and discrimination by allowing active military members to be tried exclusively in potentially non-transparent military courts, even for general crimes. This judicial review seeks to address these issues, promoting equality before the law and civilian supremacy in a democratic system.",
        "content": "<p>Chairman of the Al-Araf Centre Initiative Board revealed a\nstrengthening trend in Europe to integrate or even abolish military\ncourts, particularly during peacetime. This was stated by Al-Araf while\nproviding expert testimony in case number 260\/PUU-XXIII\/2025 regarding\nthe material review of Law No.\u00a031 of 1997 on Military Justice at the\nConstitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (14\/4). \u201cCountries such as Denmark,\nSlovakia, Czech Republic, Portugal, France, and Sweden apply a pure\ncivilian model where all cases, including those involving the military,\nare handled by civilian courts,\u201d Al-Araf said before the constitutional\njudges. \u201cIn addition to those countries, there are nations that do not\neven have military courts during peacetime. Military courts only operate\nduring wartime,\u201d he continued. Al-Araf exemplified Germany, which does\nnot maintain military courts in peacetime and hands over criminal\nhandling to civilian courts, while disciplinary violations are addressed\nthrough administrative mechanisms. \u201cThe same applies to the Netherlands.\nWhy is that? Because military courts are essentially needed in relation\nto military interests in wartime duties and functions. So, they exist\nduring war,\u201d he explained. Al-Araf added that the issue of military\ncourts in Indonesia is not merely a technical matter but concerns the\nprotection of human rights (HAM) and the supremacy of law. The state\u2019s\ninability to ensure that perpetrators from military members are tried\nthrough independent, transparent, and accountable courts ultimately\nreflects a failure to fulfil constitutional obligations to guarantee\npublic safety. On this occasion, Al-Araf discussed several issues\nrelated to military courts. First, regarding the Military Court Law\n(31\/1997), which was not created in a vacuum. This law was formed in\n1997 during the authoritarian New Order political regime that ignored\nthe principles of the rule of law and human rights. \u201cDuring the New\nOrder era, legal products formed in laws tended to be repressive and\nmerely served as instruments of control for those in power,\u201d he said.\n\u201cThe state formed laws at that time not within the framework of the rule\nof law, but solely to meet the needs of rule by law,\u201d he continued.\nAccording to Al-Araf, military courts do not meet fair trial principles.\nThis is because military courts for active soldiers potentially provide\nspecial treatment. Additionally, there is discriminatory treatment where\ncivilians are tried in open and transparent general courts, while\nmilitary personnel in similar cases are tried in military courts that\ntend to be closed. \u201c\u2026 that all citizens must be subject to the same law\nand tried through the same judicial mechanisms without privileges for\ncertain groups,\u201d he emphasised. In addition to Al-Araf, the expert\npresented in this material review case regarding the Military Court Law\nis a lecturer from the Constitutional Law Department at the Faculty of\nLaw, Gadjah Mada University (FH UGM), Zainal Arifin Mochtar. Uceng, his\nfamiliar name, concluded that there is a tangled or chaotic situation in\nthe current military justice system. In his testimony as an expert,\nUceng grouped his discussion into four concepts: the rule of law,\nequality before the law, the right to legal certainty, and judicial\nindependence. He used textual, systematic, theological methods, and some\naspects analysed philosophically in constitutional law to deliver his\nexpert testimony before the constitutional judges. \u201cI think it\u2019s more\nthan enough for us to say there is a tangled mess in military justice,\nin our concept of building a military justice system,\u201d said Uceng. In\nthe first hearing at the MK on Thursday, 8 January 2025, the\nPetitioners, represented by their attorney Ibnu Syamsul Hidayat,\nemphasised that impunity for soldiers contradicts the rule of law and\nequality before the law principles. The Petitioners also highlighted\nbroader consequences, namely the weakening of civilian supremacy in the\ndemocratic governance system. The dominance of military court\njurisdiction over general courts is deemed contrary to the principles of\na constitutional democratic state that places civilian power above\nmilitary power. According to the Petitioners, this dual jurisdiction\nstems from the provisions of Article 9 paragraph 1 of the Military Court\nLaw, which gives special status to active TNI soldiers to be tried\nexclusively in military courts, even if they commit general criminal\noffences. This regulation is considered potentially to breed impunity\nand violate the principle of equality before the law. \u201cThe phrase\n\u2018trying criminal offences\u2019 in Article 9 paragraph 1 of Law No.\u00a031 of\n1997 opens opportunities and a broad basis for interpretation of\nmilitary court authority, not only to try soldiers or those equated with\nsoldiers who commit military crimes and disciplinary violations, but\nalso to authorise trials for other criminal cases such as corruption,\ntraffic, domestic violence, narcotics, psychotropics, and child\nprotection,\u201d said Ibnu, quoted from the MK website.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/expert-at-constitutional-court-trend-in-europe-to-abolish-military-courts-during-peacetime-1776178246",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}