The right to a fair trial - Requirements of impartiality and independence under Articles 14 (1) ICCPR, 8 (1) IACHR and 6 (1) ECHR in relation to military courts

Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)

• Introduction
• Structure
• A. International Legal Framework
  • I. Binding Instruments
  • II. Non-Binding Instruments
• B. Impartiality & Independence (Preliminary thoughts)
  • I. Introduction
  • II. Impartiality
  • III. Independence
  • IV. Summary
• C. Application of trial guarantees (impartiality & independence)
  • I. Military Tribunals –distinguished
    • 1. ICCPR
    • 2. IACHR/ECHR
  • II. ICCPR
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. State reports / General Comment Nr. 13 + 32
    • 3. Individual complaints
      • a. Bazzano v Uruguay
      • b. Little v Jamaica
      • c. Campos v Peru
      • d. Kurbanova v Tajikistan
    • 4. Summary
  • III. IACHR
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. State Reports Annual Reports (Commission)
      • a. Uruguay
      • b. Colombia (first)
      • c. Guatemala / Chile
      • d. Peru
      • e. Columbia (second)
      • f. Summary
    • 3. Individual complaints (Commission)
      • a. Introduction
      • b. Alexis Fuentes Guerro et al. v Columbia
      • c. Santos Mendivelso Coconubo v Columbia
      • d. Lindo and Concha v Peru
      • e Diniz Bento da Silva v Brazil
      • f. Summary
    • 4. Individual complaints (Court)
      • a. Introduction
      • b. Loayza-Tamayo v Peru
      • c. Petruzzi et al. v Peru
      • d. Case of 19 merchants v Columbia
      • e. Lori Berenson-Mejía v Peru
      • f. Summary
  • IV ECHR
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Independence & Impartiality
      • a. England
        • aa. Findlay v The United Kingdom
        • bb. Steel and Morris v The United Kingdom
        • cc. Bell v The United Kingdom
      • b. Turkey
        • aa. Introduction
        • bb. Incal v Turkey
        • cc. Çıraklar v Turkey
      • c. Summary
  • D. Conclusions & Summary
  • E. Primary/Secondary Literature

  Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)

  This thesis aims to analyze the framework and relevant case law concerning the requirements of independence and impartiality under Article 14 (1) ICCPR, Article 8 (1) IACHR, and Article 6 (1) ECHR in relation to military courts. The paper focuses on the application of these international legal instruments to military tribunals, exploring the challenges and complexities of ensuring fair trials in such contexts.
  • The international legal framework for fair trials, particularly the requirements of impartiality and independence, as enshrined in the ICCPR, IACHR, and ECHR.
  • The specific challenges and complexities posed by military courts in upholding the principles of impartiality and independence.
  • The analysis of relevant case law, examining how these international instruments have been applied in cases involving military tribunals.
  • The potential for bias and lack of scrutiny in military courts, particularly in cases involving civilians or members of the military.
  • The implications of military courts for the separation of powers and the protection of fundamental rights.

  Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)

  • The introduction provides an overview of the thesis's objectives, focusing on the analysis of the international legal framework for fair trials and its application to military courts. It highlights the importance of impartiality and independence in ensuring a fair trial and the challenges posed by military courts in upholding these principles.
  • The chapter on the international legal framework analyzes relevant binding and non-binding instruments, highlighting the key provisions related to the right to a fair trial, particularly the requirements of impartiality and independence, as enshrined in the ICCPR, IACHR, and ECHR.
  • The chapter on impartiality and independence provides a preliminary discussion of these concepts, outlining their significance in the context of fair trials. The chapter explores the potential for bias and lack of scrutiny in military courts, examining the challenges of ensuring impartiality and independence in such contexts.
  • The chapter on the application of trial guarantees (impartiality and independence) delves into the specific challenges posed by military tribunals in upholding the principles of impartiality and independence. It analyzes relevant case law under the ICCPR, IACHR, and ECHR, examining how these international instruments have been applied in cases involving military courts.

  Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)

  This thesis explores the intersection of international law and military justice, focusing on the fundamental principles of impartiality and independence in the context of fair trials. The research examines the application of these principles to military courts, analyzing relevant case law and exploring the challenges and complexities of ensuring fair trials in such contexts. Key concepts include the ICCPR, IACHR, ECHR, military tribunals, impartiality, independence, separation of powers, and human rights.

  Frequently Asked Questions

  What are the requirements for a fair trial regarding military courts?

  Under international law (ICCPR, ECHR, IACHR), courts must be independent and impartial, which is often problematic when military courts try civilians.

  Why is the independence of military courts often questioned?

  Because they often have a direct nexus to the executive branch, blurring the line of separation of powers and potentially lacking public scrutiny.

  What is the issue of 'impunity' in military justice?

  It refers to cases where military members judge their comrades, often leading to verdicts that shield them from accountability for human rights abuses.

  Which international conventions protect the right to a fair trial?

  Key instruments include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and regional conventions like the ECHR and IACHR.

  How has the Inter-American Court of Human Rights influenced this topic?

  The court has developed extensive case law (e.g., in Peru and Colombia) to limit the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians and human rights violations.