Military court

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Finnish military tribunal 1944

A military court or military tribunal is a court that consists of military judges (usually soldiers themselves ) and that exercises criminal jurisdiction over members of the military ( military criminal law ). Military criminal laws primarily deal with crimes committed by members of the military and, in some cases, crimes against the military as ancillary criminal law . In some states the application of a special military justice is incumbent , in others the ordinary jurisdiction .

To distinguish the military court, the summary court that during a locally proclaimed martial law applies. In the case of military occupation , military courts can also have jurisdiction over the civilian population of the occupied area.

International

Internationally, the international law of war applies .

Europe in the age of standing armies

Military courts already existed in the early modern period, mostly as standing courts on campaigns. Here, the individual regiments, chaired by the regimental commanders, deliberated and judged in a cooperative form, separated by ranks. After - was groundbreaking for Europe - at least on paper Thirty Years' War , the Swedish military law with its prosecutors ( Audi Expensive ) and his three instances (regimental court martial, general court martial and Governor General). It even provided for the regimental court files to be delivered to Stockholm every year.

Other historical military jurisdictions

Germany

Until the end of the German Confederation

Brandenburg-Prussia and most of the German territories were based on the extremely extensive set of paragraphs of Swedish military law.

The individual German states such as Prussia and Bavaria each had their own armed forces and thus their own military jurisdiction.

Empire and Weimar Republic

After the founding of the empire , the empire became responsible and in 1898 the military criminal court order was issued. According to this, recognizing dishes were:

  • Stand meals (field and board stand meals)
  • Courts of war (field and board war courts)
  • High Courts of War
  • the Reich Military Court

In Germany, the military penal code for the German Reich of June 20, 1872 was in force until 1945 .

After the end of the First World War , military justice was lifted.

Third Reich

During the Nazi era , a military jurisdiction was re- established in 1934 . The lowest court was called the court martial, the highest military court was the Reich court martial . The central court of the army existed from April 11 to September 20, 1944 . In the final phase of the Second World War , Hitler had so-called flying stand courts set up, which were no longer bound by the procedural provisions applicable up until then. Above all, they condemned suspected desertions .

The naval war courts remained active on Allied orders until June 22, 1945, also in the areas still occupied by German naval forces in the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. According to Allied Military Law No. 153 of May 4, 1945, German death sentences were to be submitted to Allied authorities for review before they were carried out; however, the order was disregarded several times due to alleged ignorance. This not only affected judgments shortly before or after the capitulation, but also old cases, e.g. B. of deserters who, after the surrender, were taken into Allied custody as prisoners of war and from there transferred to German courts-martial.

A total of at least 22,000 people were executed as victims of Nazi military justice , countless others died in camps and punitive units. Most of the Nazi military justice judgments were only overturned in 2002 by the German Bundestag with the law to repeal Nazi judgments in the criminal justice system . The injustice of the Nazi military justice is the focus of the traveling exhibition "What Was Right Back then ... - Soldiers and Civilians Before Courts of the Wehrmacht" , which was first shown in Berlin from June 22nd to August 1st, 2007. An occasion to look back at this time and to come to terms with the past was the Filbinger affair from February to August 1978, at the end of which the former naval judge Hans Filbinger , Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg since 1966, resigned.

See also: Treason under National Socialism

Allied military jurisdiction after World War II

Both the Nuremberg trial of the main war criminals and the Nazi trials in the individual zones of occupation took place in military courts.

German Democratic Republic

In 1963, an independent military jurisdiction for the NVA was introduced in the GDR .

It consisted of ten military courts, three military court courts (in Berlin, Leipzig, Neubrandenburg) and the military college of the Supreme Court of the GDR . There were military prosecutors before that. The departments of the military prosecutors had investigators ( investigators ) who performed the tasks assigned to the criminal police in the civilian sector. The civil police and judicial authorities were not responsible for the NVA. The military judges and public prosecutors were members of the NVA, wore uniforms and had military ranks.

The legal basis was the military court order, from 1968 onwards the 9th chapter of the penal code .

Federal Republic of Germany

According to Art. 96, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law , the federal government can establish military criminal courts for the armed forces as federal courts . The military criminal courts can only exercise criminal jurisdiction in the event of a defense and against members of the armed forces who are sent abroad or embarked on board of warships. The federal government has so far not set up these courts. Members of the armed forces of the Bundeswehr are therefore subject to the criminal case of the ordinary jurisdiction .

Since April 1, 2013, according to Section 11a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there has been a uniform place of jurisdiction for acts committed abroad by soldiers in special foreign employment . If a criminal offense outside Germany is committed by soldiers of the Bundeswehr in special foreign employment in accordance with Section 62 (1) of the Soldiers Act , the place of jurisdiction is the court responsible for the city of Kempten (Allgäu) . There is also a specialty public prosecutor's office in Kempten .

Crimes that can only be committed by soldiers or military superiors are justified in the Military Penal Act. The ordinary courts are responsible for crimes committed under this Act.

For the judicial military disciplinary and complaint proceedings, the troop service courts ( north or south ) are responsible as "special administrative courts" in the first instance, and ultimately the 1st or 2nd military service senate of the Federal Administrative Court .

Austria

Development until 1918

The Austro-Hungarian military justice system was in force in Austria until 1918 .

1918 to 1934

In the course of the creation of the republic, the military jurisdiction existing in the monarchy was abolished in Austria . The Federal Constitutional Law passed in 1920 expressly restricted the admissibility of military jurisdiction to war cases.

1934 to 1938

During the period of Austrofascism (also known as the corporate state ) between 1934 and 1938, under Federal Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, a decision was taken to impose martial law in the meeting of the Council of Ministers on November 10, 1933 ; it came into effect the next day. It applied to the crimes of murder, arson and the crime of public violence and was directed against people who were caught in the act or whose guilt could be established without delay. The court proceedings were conducted by a “flying senate” consisting of four judges and a public prosecutor, who had its seat at the Higher Regional Court of Vienna and, if necessary, traveled to the competent regional court, and lasted a maximum of three days. With unanimous affirmation of the question of guilt, it ended with a death sentence, which had to be carried out after two hours, but at the latest after three hours at the choke bar . For this reason, the "flying senate" often traveled to the place of negotiation together with the executioner . No legal remedy was permitted against the judgment of the stand judge , only a pardon by the Federal President was possible. With the imposition of martial law, the death penalty was reintroduced in Austria, which had already been abolished in the ordinary process in 1920. In June 1934, a change in the law reintroduced the death penalty to include due process.

If the civil court martial came mainly after the February fighting in 1934 , a military court martial was created in accordance with the constitutional law that came into force on July 26, 1934 on the introduction of a military tribunal. This was primarily intended for those involved in the July coup , many of whom had come from the ranks of the executive and the armed forces. The military tribunal established in this way was similar in composition, conduct of proceedings and competencies to civil martial arts , except that four officers acted as judges at the military tribunal. The people arrested after the July coup were divorced by the public prosecutor's office into “serious” and “less involved”. Those seriously involved (leaders, militants, couriers, etc.) were transferred to the military tribunal to try their coup-related offenses even if proceedings were pending before an ordinary court or a civil court martial. The urgent proceedings ended with numerous death sentences, 13 of which were carried out, including Otto Planetta and Franz Holzweber .

1938 to 1945

From the Anschluss in 1938, the military jurisdiction of the German Reich also applied in Austria .

Situation since 1945

In 1945 military justice was again abolished. (Until the end of the occupation in 1955, however, there were still military courts of the occupying powers in Austrian territory .) The Federal Constitutional Act , which has come into force again (currently in Art. 84  B-VG), stipulates that military jurisdiction should only be exercised by law in the event of war could be set up. However, such a law does not currently exist.

However, the prohibition of military jurisdiction does not preclude military disciplinary action. Today, violations of official duties, such as the General Service Regulations  (ADV), are  punished by disciplinary penalties at the military level in accordance with the Army Disciplinary Act (HDG). Here military organs, such as the company commander or the responsible ministry, decide . Disciplinary detention may last a maximum of 14 days.

Criminal acts, including  those under the Military Criminal Law (MilStG) of October 30, 1970, are tried by civil courts. It is also possible that a penalty under criminal law and under disciplinary law is imposed for the same act.

Switzerland

In Swiss military justice there are three military courts of first instance, three military appeal courts and the highest instance, the military court of cassation.

A certain number of court presidents, judges , substitute judges , clerks and court women are assigned to each military court of first instance . The auditors ( public prosecutors ) and examining magistrates (including candidates) are organized into three independent examining magistrates and auditor regions, independent of the courts.

The chief auditor acts as the chief prosecutor . In particular, he has the right to appeal against a penalty mandate or a hiring order from an auditor.

Unless he appoints a private defense attorney, every accused is assigned an official defense attorney who is not subject to military justice.

The substantive criminal law to be applied by the military courts is essentially contained in the Military Criminal Law of June 27, 1927 (MStG; SR  321.0). In addition, the Ordinance on Military Criminal Justice of October 24, 1979 (MStV; SR 322.2) and the Ordinance on the Criminal Code and the Military Criminal Law of September 19, 2006 (V-StGB-MStG; SR 321.01) must also be observed.

Israel

Responsibility for military personnel

The Israeli Military Tribunal was established in 1949. It consists of several local dishes ( North , South , Central , ground troops , Navy , Air Force , Special Court and military court in Lod) each of which an Oberst protrudes. Senior officers and capital crimes must be brought before the special court. There is also an appeals court presided over by the highest judge with the rank of major general or brigadier .

Jurisdiction over civilians

Criminal proceedings

In the territories occupied by Israel (only West Bank since 2005 ), the military courts exercise criminal jurisdiction over the Palestinian population, unless courts of the Palestinian Authority have jurisdiction under the Oslo Agreement. For the Palestinians there, due to the legal status of the area, Jordanian criminal law still applies , but this has been supplemented by around 1,700 Israeli military ordinances over the decades. The military courts, headed by a colonel, hear capital crimes, administrative offenses, and traffic offenses. Although only military law actually applies in these areas, the military courts are only used for Palestinians. Israeli settlers who live in the same area always come before a civil court (usually Jerusalem District Court). The Israeli penal code has also applied to them since the 1970s. Likewise, foreigners and important, internationally sensational cases, such as that of Marwan Barghouthi (Tel Aviv District Court), because military courts negotiate outside of the public eye. This approach is problematic because the 4th Geneva Convention prohibits processes outside of the occupied territories. According to the Israeli Supreme Court, this convention does not apply to anyone who has injured a civilian. Israeli soldiers were not allowed to arrest Israeli civilians until December 2011, not even if they were attacked; they are only allowed to arrest, interrogate and bring to court foreigners and Palestinians.

After a series of attacks against soldiers and acts of vandalism against mosques carried out by settlers as part of the “price label” strategy in December 2011 as “punishment” for destroying illegal outposts, Prime Minister Netanyahu approved all military law measures against these extremists. This includes arrest, administrative detention and criminal proceedings. The army rejects this idea.

Within Israel, the military judiciary operates 5 interrogation centers, 7 detention centers, 5 detention centers and 9 prisons. The only prison on the occupied territory is Ofer near Beitunia . Detainees can be held for 12 days without being informed of the reason. You can be interrogated for up to 180 days and only need a lawyer after 90 days. It is also possible for the courts to subsequently extend a prison sentence. There are separate committees for imposing administrative detention and for deportation. While the accused has little opportunity to appeal against a military judgment, the military prosecutor can apply for a higher sentence, which is upheld in 67% of cases. Palestinians are then only free to lodge a complaint with the Supreme Court.

According to reports from Israeli human rights groups Yesh Din and B'Tselem , over 99% of the trials result in a guilty verdict. The hearings take place in Hebrew, which many defendants do not understand. The courts are located in restricted military areas that are difficult for relatives to reach. The prosecution and judgments are usually only known through the lawyers, who also hardly have time to defend their clients. The average negotiation time is only 2 minutes. In 95% of the cases there is a trade in confession with the prosecution, as the pre-trial detention would sometimes take longer than the prison sentence, especially for young stone throwers. The court confirmed this in its annual report from 2010. At that time, there were only 25 acquittals in 9,542 cases (conviction rate 99.74%), 98.77% of the applications for administrative detention were at least partially accepted.

Often times, prison sentences can be prevented or reduced by paying a fine. This applies to young people with no income. Many Palestinians cannot afford these amounts of money. An analysis of the years 2015 to 2017 showed that in these three years penalties totaling the equivalent of USD 16 million were imposed, in some cases amounts for minor administrative offenses that are not in proportion to the average income.

In contrast to the civil courts, 16-year-olds are no longer treated as minors (otherwise 18 years). It is also possible for these courts to impose the death penalty. This has never happened before, but it has been applied for a number of times - even if only symbolically. In Israel, however, there is no death penalty, except for Nazi criminals.

Administrative detention

The military courts can impose an administrative detention of one to six months and extend it again and again without a judgment or charge. In one case it was over 8 years. In this case, neither the person concerned nor their lawyer will be given precise reasons or evidence presented. Only the judge sees the documents. This procedure is justified by the fact that the person poses a "security risk", but official criminal proceedings are not possible because the presentation of the evidence would reveal state secrets, interfere with ongoing investigations or uncover informants. The basis for this is a law from the British mandate .

The case of Khader Adnan, a member of Islamic Jihad , who held a 66-day hunger strike to protest his four-month administrative detention, caused a stir in 2012 . Only after official assurances that his detention would not be extended did he end his action in an already life-threatening condition. Samer Issawi, from East Jerusalem , was released after eight months of hunger strike, only to be detained again after six months. On April 24, 2014, 125 inmates went on a hunger strike, which 80 only ended after two months. There were now 68 in the hospital, and the Knesset was preparing a law that would allow force-feeding . A year later this law was passed by medical professionals despite ethical concerns.

An appeal to the military court and an appeal to the Supreme Court by the person concerned are possible, but even there he does not get access to the files. Although this practice violates Article 14 of the International Legal Convention (right to a fair trial), Israel adheres to this practice. Statistics of appeals between 2009 and 2011 also show that these are seldom granted, the Supreme Court has not yet revoked a single order.

With this method it is also possible to arrest someone who was released during a prisoner exchange after a short time, as the reason for the arrest does not have to be stated. So came z. B. Hana Shalabi was released after 25 months of administrative imprisonment in the Gilad Shalit deal in October 2011, only to be arrested again in February 2012 and sentenced to 6 months of administrative imprisonment. In 2009, a clause was also introduced that stipulates that prisoners released early (e.g. as part of a prisoner exchange) automatically have to serve their remaining sentence if they are arrested again (not conviction). This revives an ordinary prison sentence through an extraordinary administrative detention.

After several arson attacks by Jewish extremists in July 2015, the security cabinet approved the use of administrative detention and "intensified interrogation methods" for Israeli citizens on August 1, 2015. In contrast to the Palestinians, however, permission from the Attorney General is required. Just three days later, three Jewish Israelis were arrested for the first time without a court judgment.

In early 2017, 534 Palestinians, two of whom were Israeli citizens, faced this type of sentence.

Responsibility for foreign terror suspects

In the past, foreign terror suspects were also brought before military tribunals and sentenced. This also includes the two Germans Brigitte Schulz and Thomas Reuter, who were accused of planning in 1976 to shoot down an El-Al plane with a rocket in Nairobi . You and three Arabs were arrested in Nairobi on January 18, 1976 and then taken to Israel. Germany was only officially informed of this in March 1977. The trial took place in 1977 under secrecy, only one German diplomat was admitted as a trial observer under the obligation of confidentiality.

France

Military criminal law in France is regulated by the Code de justice militaire .

Russia

Soviet Union

Soviet military tribunals (SMT) were not only active in the territory of the Soviet Union (USSR), but at all locations of the Red Army / Soviet Army abroad. From 1945 to 1955 the group of the Soviet armed forces in Germany was responsible in the area of ​​the Soviet occupation zone or the later GDR . In the first two years after the end of the war, the legal basis was the Control Council Act No. 10 of December 20, 1945, the "Ukas 43" or Article 58-2 (for participation in National Socialist crimes or war crimes against the Soviet population, the occupation of the USSR or the illegal gun possession). Then there were further rights of disposal under the guise of the Soviet Control Commission (SKK). Around 1949/1950, the SKK transferred jurisdiction and the execution of sentences for SMT prisoners to the newly created internal administration of the GDR. The authority of the Ministry for State Security of the USSR (MGB) to issue instructions in the proceedings must be clarified.

Soviet military tribunals sentenced 157,000 Red Army members to death in World War II .

From 1945 to 1955, between 40,000 and 50,000 German civilians and prisoners of war were sentenced by Soviet military tribunals. So far, there is evidence of 3,301 death sentences - only against German civilians and only for the years from 1944 to 1947 - of which 2,542 were carried out. The executions usually took place in Moscow; then the corpses were cremated.

Procedure before the SMT

The proceedings before the SMT proceeded according to the Stalinist understanding of law, according to which it was not a matter of determining individual guilt, but rather that suspects, above all as opponents of the Soviet system, are removed from the public. In this regard, Soviet law was applied retrospectively. In the usual rapid process of 15 to 20 minutes, 25 years of forced labor were the standard punishment. Defense lawyers and witnesses were not admitted and there was no opportunity to appeal. A guilt did not have to be proven, the tribunal used the respective "accusation" to be deported to the USSR, shot immediately or sent to a penal institution in Bautzen, Torgau or Sachsenhausen, which were on the same premises as the tribunal 1945–50 special camps set up there ; Soviet military personnel convicted of the SMT also sat there. After the founding of the GDR, the SMT justice system only dealt with acts directed against the Soviet occupying power and left all other cases to the GDR justice system, as can be seen from the notorious Waldheim trials .

Local responsibilities

Military judges of the SMT No. 48240 from Berlin-Lichtenberg traveled to the central MGB detention centers in the individual countries for the secret court hearings:

United Kingdom

The Armed Forces Act 2006 essentially regulates current UK military criminal law .

United States

In the United States several authorities take the respective branches of the armed forces , Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG) called the tasks of investigation and court hearings true. Law enforcement is carried out by federal agencies such as the Naval Criminal Investigative Service  (NCIS) or the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command with its individual divisions  (CID).

After the Supreme Court of the United States ( Supreme Court ), the military tribunals at the military base Guantanamo had declared illegal, the government created George W. Bush in October 2006 with the introduction of the law the Military Commissions Act , the legal basis, so-called "unlawful enemy combatants" ( "Illegal enemy combatants") to be tried by military courts. In February 2007 the last formal obstacles were removed and the establishment of the special tribunals was initiated by the White House by decree.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the United States of America's military criminal law .

literature

various historical:

  • Maren Lorenz : The wheel of violence. Military and civilian population in Northern Germany after the Thirty Years War (1650–1700). Böhlau, Cologne et al. 2007, ISBN 978-3-412-11606-4 (also: Hamburg, Univ., Habil.-Schr.).

to the SMT:

  • Annerose Matz-Donath : German women before Soviet military tribunals. The trail of the red sphinx . Lindenbaum-Verlag, Beltheim 2014, ISBN 978-3-938176-53-5 .
  • The first years of the Soviet Zone / GDR. In: Report of the Enquète Commission “Coming to terms with the history and consequences of the SED dictatorship in Germany”. German Bundestag, printed matter 12/7820, Bonn 1994
  • Gerhard Finn: The political prisoners in the Soviet zone. Berlin 1958
  • Karl Wilhelm Fricke : Politics and Justice in the GDR . Cologne 1979
  • Society Memorial: Razstrelnye Spiski. Moskva 1935–1953. Donskoye kladbistsche. Moskwa, Obstschestwo "Memorial", Moscow 2005 (firing lists. Moscow 1935–1953. Donskoy Cemetery . Memorial book for the victims of political repression. Ed. By the Society Memorial . Moscow 2005. 5,065 biographies; Russian)
  • Jörg Rudolph, Frank Drauschke, Alexander Sachse: executed in Moscow. Victims of Stalinism from Berlin 1950-1953 (= series of publications by the Berlin State Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former GDR , No. 23). Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-934085-26-8 . ( online PDF, 3.1 MB)
  • Andreas Weigelt, Klaus-Dieter Müller, Thomas Schaarschmidt, Mike Schmeitzner (eds.): Death sentences of Soviet military tribunals against Germans (1944–1947). A historical-biographical study . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2015, ISBN 978-3-525-36968-5 .
  • The system of communist terror in the Soviet zone. SPD Information Service , Memorandum 28, Hanover 1950

Web links

Wikisource: Military topic page  - Sources and full texts
Wiktionary: Military court  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Criminal Code for the Prussian Army of April 3, 1845 ( Law Collection, p. 287 ), Part Two: Criminal Court Regulations ;
    Wikisource: Military Criminal Code for the German Empire (1872)  - Sources and full texts
  2. ↑ Military criminal court order for the Kingdom of Bavaria (1869)
  3. ↑ cf. Constitution of the German Empire, Art. 61
  4. ↑ from December 1, 1898 (RGBl. P. 1189); came into force on October 1, 1900, see ordinance of December 28, 1899 (RGBl. 1900 p. 1)
  5. ↑ Law regarding the repeal of military jurisdiction, of August 17, 1920 ( RGBl. P. 1579 )
  6. ↑ K. Brümmer-Pauly, Desertion in the Law of National Socialism (Berlin, 2006), p. 75.
  7. ↑ Spiegel article from July 7, 1965
  8. ↑ Spiegel article from September 12, 1966
  9. ↑ Information about the exhibition on the website of the Foundation Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe
  10. ↑ http://home.snafu.de/veith/justiz.htm
  11. ↑ from April 4, 1963 ( Journal I No. 4 p. 71 ) or from September 27, 1974 ( Journal I No. 52 p. 481 )
  12. ↑ previously: Third part ( memento of June 19, 2018 in the Internet Archive ) of the Criminal Law Supplementary Act of December 11, 1957 and Military Criminal Law of January 24, 1962 ( Journal of Laws of I No. 2 p. 25 )
  13. ↑ https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/10474/index.htm
  14. ^ A b c d Mathias Lichtenwagner: Military jurisdiction in Austria through the ages. f ( Memento from January 11, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) In: 175 years of jurisdiction in the Josefstadt. Catalog, Bezirksmuseum Josefstadt, 2014, pp. 53–60 (pdf, staatswissenschaft.univie.ac.at; for the catalog see oebv.com, pdf ( memento from January 11, 2016 in the Internet Archive )).
  15. ↑ Federal Law Gazette No. 77/1934
  16. ↑ Federal Constitutional Law of July 26, 1934 on the introduction of a military tribunal as an exceptional court to judge the criminal acts associated with the attempted coup of July 25, 1934 . In: BGBl . No. 152/1934 . Vienna July 26, 1934 ( online at ALEX ).
  17. ↑ Army Disciplinary Act 2002 (PDF; 220 kB), BMLV
  18. ↑ (Swiss) Senior Auditor ( Memento from December 29, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
  19. ↑ (Swiss) Military Criminal Law of June 13, 1927 (MStG; SR 321.0)
  20. ↑ IDF homepage ( Memento from July 21, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  21. ↑ Court sentences West Bank settler to prison for beating Palestinian minor , Ha-Aretz
  22. ^ Military court president pushing to apply Israeli criminal law in West Bank , Ha-Aretz on November 29, 2012
  23. ↑ Israel publicized plan Trial Of Emerging Palestinian figure , New York Times
  24. ^ The trial of Mr. Marwan Barghouti , Inter-Parliamentary Union
  25. ↑ Amnon Strashnov: Israel's Military Justice System in Times of Terror
  26. ^ Israeli law is powerless in the settlements , Ha-Aretz on December 13, 2011
  27. ↑ Netanyahu: Jewish extremists not a 'terror group' but will be given military trial , Ha-Aretz on December 15, 2011
  28. ^ IDF opposes plan to try Jewish extremists in military courts , Ha-Aretz on December 27, 2011
  29. ↑ Palestinian Prisoners in Israeli Detention ( Memento April 3, 2012 in the Internet Archive ), if Americans knew
  30. ^ Military court extends detention for Abdallah Abu Rahmah , taz on January 13, 2011
  31. ^ The league protests against verdict and sentence , International League for Human Rights on October 15, 2010
  32. ^ Report: Israeli military courts automatically convict Palestinians , Ynet on June 1, 2008
  33. ↑ Israel convicts most stone-throwing Palestinian children, right group says , Ha-Aretz 18 July 2011
  34. ↑ Virtually all military court cases in West Bank end in conviction , Ha-Aretz on November 29, 2011
  35. ↑ In Three Years, Israeli Military Courts Have Fined Palestinians $ 16 Million , Ha-Aretz January 15, 2019
  36. ^ IDF sets up separate court for Palestinian minors , Ha-Aretz
  37. ^ Shalit deal to set free perpetrators of 2000 lynching of IDF reservists , Ha-Aretz on October 17, 2011
  38. ↑ Palestinians end hunger strike , ORF online on June 25, 2014
  39. ↑ Palestinian prisoner ends 66-day hunger strike after Israel guarantees his release , Ha-Aretz on February 22, 2012
  40. ↑ Palestinian detainees reach deal to end hunger strike , Ha-Aretz on June 25, 2014
  41. ↑ Israeli Lawmakers Pass Law Sanctioning Force Feeding Prisoners , Ha-Aretz on July 30, 2015
  42. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20181103131234/https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/short_summary_iopt.doc , Amnesty International
  43. ^ IDF courts in West Bank cancel just 2.6% of Palestinian administrative detention orders , Ha-Aretz on March 4, 2013
  44. ^ Israel cuts detention of female Palestinian hunger striker , Ha-Aretz on March 5, 2012
  45. ↑ Guilty until proven innocent , by Amira Hass Ha-Aretz on February 20, 2013
  46. ^ [1] , Ha-Aretz on August 2, 2015
  47. ^ Israel Places Three Right-wing Extremists Under Administrative Detention , Ha-Aretz on August 5, 2015
  48. ^ Israeli Arab, 20, Jailed Without Trial for More Than Six Months , Ha-Aretz on January 2, 2017
  49. ↑ Total solar eclipse , Der Spiegel, 4/1980
  50. ^ Code de justice militaire of the French Republic (legifrance).
  51. ↑ Norbert Haase: Wehrmacht members before the court martial. In: RD Müller, HE Volkmann (Ed. On behalf of MGFA): The Wehrmacht: Myth and Reality. Oldenbourg, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-486-56383-1 , p. 481.
  52. ^ Jörg Rudolph, Frank Drauschke, Alexander Sachse: Executed in Moscow. Victims of Stalinism from Berlin 1950-1953 . Berlin 2007, p. 72.
  53. ↑ Andreas Weigelt, Klaus-Dieter Müller, Thomas Schaarschmidt, Mike Schmeitzner (eds.): Death sentences of Soviet military tribunals against Germans (1944-1947). A historical-biographical study . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2015, ISBN 978-3-525-36968-5 , p. 8.
  54. ↑ Armed Forces Act 2006 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (legislation.gov.uk).
  55. ↑ Die Presse : Verdict: Beginning of the End for Guantánamo , June 30, 2006.
  56. ↑ Die Presse : USA: Clear Way for Special Military Tribunals , February 15, 2007.
  57. ↑ Uniform Code of Military Justice of the United States of America (law.cornell.edu).