☪☪☪☪;920192 said:
Army will never let civil courts intervene in Army Internal Matters.
Court of Appeals comes under the JAG. It is not a civil court. Nonetheless, all military laws have to abide by constitutional limits and they have been interpreted in multiple cases in the SC. Air Force Act has had to be amended twice as well.
Such is the case as in US Armed Forces the Civil courts have no jurisdiction unless Civil crime is committed outside the base.
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is a civil court like many other Appeals Courts for militaries in the world. Ours is not such a case though.
The judgment might contain some classified data because of which it is not possible to present the judgment.
"Present" is a wrong word. Again you are interpreting as if the judgment is being forwarded to a civil court. A defendant has the right to appeal his court. Unless a copy of the judgment is provided, he has no way he can appeal the decision.
Let me just clarify the whole scenario for you people are stuck with twisting it somehow when it is plain simple.
1. Soldiers handed down punishment by Field General Court Martial.
2. Soldier has now right to appeal decision in Court of Appeals.
3. Defence has not been provided copy rendering an appeal out of the question.
4. Federal Shariat Court has deemed this an unconstitutional and UnIslamic act.
My objections to Court of Appeals being a military court are irrelevant here for the fact of the matter is that somebody is being denied a fundamental right to appeal. He was handed down a punishment because he allegedly sympathized with the enemy and expressed views not to support an operation against them. Therefore he was handed a punishment for it, which he should serve not withstanding his fundamental right to appeal the decision. If you happen to read jurisprudence, or perhaps even try to think rationally why it is so necessary to provide an appeal then you'll support the right to receive a copy of the judgment. An error in judgment, mistrial or technicality cannot be ruled out of question in any judgment anywhere in the world. That is why an appeals stage is always present so as not to sentence anybody unjustly. Besides the fundamental flaw of military judges in Pakistan being field soldiers and not judicial officers, there always exists the chances of an unjust decision. Even if the proof is downright conclusive including forensic, circumstantial or even testimonial, the defendant is allowed the right to appeal keeping in mind the profound nature of the punishment.
If you perceive this as some bad-image propaganda, then perhaps you should think by placing yourself in a position where you might have been the victim of injustice. Nobody, absolutely nobody has said that the judgment is wrong, unjust or unnecessary (the merits of the judgment haven't been released anyway) but I for one believe that he should have the right to a fair trial and an appeal.
A fair trial constitutes both an impartial, experienced and trained judge and a good defence lawyer. In the absence of these things, what is present i.e. a Field General Court Martial and the existing nature of the Court of Appeals should not be denied. He has been given the right to appeal his judgment, nobody has the right to deny him this right.
