DOS Memo re: Talking Points on Military Tribunals and Due Process for Terrorists, Insurgents, and Others Engaged in Subversive Activities

UNCLASSIFIED
RELEASED IN FULL
MILITARY TRIBUNALS AND DUE PROCESS:
STATEMENTS BY THE US GOVERNMENT

Introduction

This memorandum reviews U.S. Government statements
that are critical of military tribunals as used by
other countries for trying terrorists, insurgents, and
others engaged in subversive activities. (Also
included, at pages 20-27, are statements made by
various human rights groups.)

Nearly all of the statements pertain to military
tribunals that were used to try specifically
terrorists, insurgents, or civilians engaged in
subversive activities.

The statements are organized as follows:

(1)
USG statements organized by particular rights;

(2)
more complete USG statements organized by
country; and

(3)
human rights groups' statements organized by
country.

(1) USG Statements (organized by particular rights)

Right to Independent and Impartial Trial

USG criticized the Democratic Republic of Congo,
noting that its tribunals were "not independent of
the executive branch, which could and did manipulate

[them]." 1998 DOS Country Report on Human Rights

Practices.

DOS-001036
USG has criticized Egypt, stating that "(w]hile
military judges are lawyers, they are also military

• officers appointed by the Minister of Defense and
subject to military discipline. They are not
independent or as qualified as civilian judges in
applying the civilian penal code." 1995, 1996 DOS
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

USG has noted with regard to Jordan that "[d]efense
attorneys have challenged the appointment of
military judges to the State Security Court to try
civilian cases as contrary to the concept of an
independent judiciary. Military judges appear to

01/04/02. 1 Created by BOWKERDW, L/PM
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
x7-0850
REVIEW AUTHORITY: ARCHIE M BOLSTER

UNCLASSIFIED
DATE/CASE ID: 14 DEC 2004 200303827
receive adequate training in civil law and court

procedure . . . ." 1996 DOS Country Report on Human

Rights Practices.

. USG noted. in the case of Venezuela that "the Supreme Court selects military judges from a list of candidates provided by the Minister of Defense, a process that links the careers or military judges to the high command. The tendency of military judges to :be responsive to the views of their military leaders, to maintain procedural secrecy, and to act slowly in high-profile cases in which the military is implicated make impartial or timely trials for defendants unlikely." 1996, 1997, 1998 DOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
. Right to Public Trial
.
USG noted with respect to Israel that "[c]ases involving national security may be tried in either military or civil courts and may be partly or wholly • closed to the public. The Attorney General determines the venue in such cases. The prosecution must justify closing the proceedings to the public." 1995, 1996 DOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

.
USG stated with regard to Jordan that "[t]he State Security Court

. . frequently restricts public
attendance at its trials." 1996 DOS Country Report
on Human Rights Practices.

.
USG strongly criticized Nigeria, stating that a
special military tribunal conducted in secret
violated international norms of due process. US
State Department Spokesman Nicholas Burns said "[w]e
have repeatedly called on the government of Nigeria
to respect its stated commitment to due process by
providing fair, open, public trials, for all persons
detained or charged with criminal conduct, including
those detained or charged in connection with the
alleged March coup plotting." Deutsche-Presse
Agentur, July 18, 1995.

. USG condemned military tribunals in Peru, stating
that "[p]roceedings in military courts that hear
terrorism and treason cases do not meet

01/04/02 2
Created by BOWKERDW,

LI I' x7-0850 DOS-001037
internationally accepted standards for due process.
Military trials are closed to the public and are
carried out in secrecy by military judges whose
identities are not revealed in court." 1996 DOS
Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

Right to Counsel

USG noted with regard to the Democratic Republic of
Congo that "[1]ocal human rights groups expressed
concern [that] . . . many of the accused apparently
lack[ed] defense counsel." 1998 DOS Country Report
on Human Rights Practices.

USG has said that Cuban military trials of
counterrevolutionaries. are unfair, stating that
"[o]ften the sole evidence provided, particularly in
political cases, is the defendant's confession,
usually obtained under duress, and without the legal
advice or knowledge of a defense lawyer. The
authorities regularly deny defendants access to
their lawyers until the day of the trial. Several
dissidents who have served prison terms reported
that they were tried and sentenced without counsel
and were not allowed to speak on their own behalf. .

. . Attorneys have reported reluctance'to defend
those charged in political cases due to fear of
jeopardizing their own careers. 1998 DOS Country
Report for Human Rights Practices.

USG noted with regard to Eritrea that "[t]he
continued handling of civilian cases by these
military courts raised problems of due process
because of the absence of defense counsel . . . ."
1998 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

USG has criticized Iraq for its use of military
tribunals to try terrorists, stating that
"[a]uthorities often hold defendants incommunicado
and do not permit contact with lawyers." 1995, 1996
DOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

• USG•has noted with respect to Israel that
"[d]efendants have the right to be represented by
counsel even in closed proceedings . . . ." 1995,
1996 DOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

01/04/02 3

Created by BOWKERDW, L/PUNCLASSIFIED

x7-0850 DOS-001038
USG has that, in Jordan, "(d)efendants tried in the
State Security Court are often held in pretrial
detention without access to lawyers, although they
are visited by representatives of the ICRC." 1996
DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

Right to Presumption of Innocence

USG noted with regard to Pakistan that "[t]he
Government may refer cases involving terrorism . .
or similar offenses to special terrorism courts . .

. . Many legal experts believe the special courts
do not provide a fair trial. They maintain that the
short time for investigations and trial procedures
have effectively repudiated the presumption of
innocence." 1995, 1996 DOS Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices.

Right to Due Process

.
Ambassador Howard Wolpe, Special Envoy for the Great Lakes, testified before the House Committee on International Relations Subcommittees on International Operations and Human Rights and on Africa, stating "[o]nly this week we learned of another sixteen executions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fourteen of those executed were civilians who were condemned to death by a military tribunal and without any semblance of due process. This is unacceptable." (March 5, 1998)

.
USG has criticized Cuban military tribunals with jurisdiction over certain counterrevolutionary cases, stating that "[t]he law and trial practices do not meet international standards for fair public trials. Almost all cases are tried in less than a day; there are no jury trials. While most trials are public, trials are closed when state security allegedly is involved. . . . Criteria for presenting evidence . . . are arbitrary and discriminatory." 1998 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

USG has criticized Egypt, claiming that its
"military courts do not guarantee civilian
defendants due process before an independent
tribunal." 1995, 1996 DOS Country Report on Human
Rights Practices.

01/04/02 4
Created by BOWKERDW, L/kTNCLASSIFIED

• x7-0850 DOS-001039
USG noted with respect to Eritrea that "[t]he
continued handling of civilian cases by these
military courts raised problems of due process
because of the absence of defense counsel and denial
of the right to appeal. Denial of due process has
been a problem on occasion for critics of the
Government . . . ." 1998 DOS Country Report on
Human Rights Practices.

USG strongly criticized Nigeria when State
Department spokesman Nicholas Burns expressed "deep
concern" about Nigeria's conviction and sentencing
of 10 alleged coup plotters, including a former
president. "The trials were carried out in secret .

. . The 10 Nigerians, including former president
Olusegun Obasanjo and his former deputy Shehu Musa
'.tar 'Adua, were convicted by a special military
tribunal in a secret process that Burns said
violated international norms of due process. 'We
have repeatedly called on the government of Nigeria
to respect its stated commitment to due process by
providing fair, open, public trials, for all persons
detained or charged with criminal conduct, including
those detained or charged in connection with the
alleged March coup plotting,' Burns said. 'We urge
the government of Nigeria to respect international
norms relating to human rights, including the
universal declaration of human rights,' he said."
Deutsche-Presse Agentur, July 18, 1995.

. US Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice criticized Nigeria, stating that "[m]ilitary tribunals denied due process to political and other prisoners, prompting both the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Commission to condemn the Nigerian Government and call upon it to respect fundamental human rights and restore civilian rule.", July, 1998 Department of State Dispatch: Statements by the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Susan E. Rice, before the House International Relations Committee, Washington, DC; June 25, 1998.
US State Department spokesman James Foley criticized
Nigeria, stating that "the proceedings in the
military tribunal . . . failed to meet minimum

01/04/02 5 •
Created by BOWKERDW, U

NCLASSIFIED
x7-0850

DOS-001040
international standards of due process." AP Online

April 29, 1998.

USG condemned military tribunals in Peru, stating
that "[p]roceedings in military courts that hear
terrorism and treason cases do not meet •
internationally accepted standards for due process.

. . . The sentencing in January to life imprisonment
of U.S. citizen Lori Berenson on treason charges
focused additional international attention on the
lack of due process in the faceless military
tribunals." 1996 DOS Country Report on Human Rights
Practices.

USG noted in the case of insurgents tried in Sierra
Leone that "[w]hile some were tried in secret by a
military tribunal, all were executed without right
of appeal and probably without due process of law."
1992 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

Right Against Self-Incrimination

USG has said that Cuban military trials of
counterrevolutionaries are unfair, stating that
"[o]ften the sole evidence provided, particularly in
political cases, is the defendant's confession,
usually obtained under duress . . . ." 1998 DOS
Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

USG has criticized Iraq for its use of military
tribunals to try terrorists, stating that "[t]he
courts admit confessions extracted by torture, which
often serve as the basis for conviction." 1995,
1996 DOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.\

USG has noted with respect to Jordan that "[i]n the
State Security Court, judges have inquired into
allegations that defendants were tortured and have
permitted the testimony of physicians regarding
these allegations. To date the Court has not
invalidated confessions obtained under duress, but
on review, the Court of Cassation has ruled that the
State Security Court cannot issue a death sentence
on the basis of such a confession alone . . . ."
1996 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

01/04/02 6

Created by BOWKERDW, L/PUNCLASSIFIED

x7-0850 DOS-001041
. USG has noted in the case of Northern Ireland that "[t]he Diplock Courts have been widely criticized. .
. . uncorroborated confessions [are permitted], but they cannot be the sole basis for conviction anywhere in the UK. The 1988 Criminal Evidence Order
. allows judges to draw an adverse inference when a
suspect refuses to answer questions." 1995 DOS
Country Report on Human Rights Practices for the
United Kingdom.

. Right to Confront Witnesses
. USG noted that in Colombia's "faceless" tribunals "'[i]t was . . . difficult for defense attorneys to impeach or cross-examine anonymous witnesses . . . . As a result of such concerns, judges may no longer base a conviction solely on the testimony of an anonymous witness." 1996 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.
USG condemned military tribunals in Peru, noting
that "[d]efense attorneys do not have access to
evidence, nor can they interview police or military
witnesses (to protect their identities) prior to or
during the trial." 1996 DOS Country Report on Huamn
Rights Practices.

.
Right to Have Access to and/or Present Evidence

.
USG noted that in Colombian. "faceless tribunals," "defense attorneys . . . often . . . did not have unimpeded access to State's evidence." 1996 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

.
USG has criticized Cuban military tribunals, stating that "[t]he law and trial practices do not meet international standards for fair public trials. . . Criteria for presenting evidence . . . are arbitrary and discriminatory." 1998 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

.
USG has noted with respect to Israel that "[d]efendants . . . may be denied access to some evidence on security grounds. Convictions may not be based on any evidence denied to the defense." 1995, 1996 DOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

01/04/02
Created by BOWKERDW, L/pUNCLAS§IFIED

x7-0850 DOS-001042
. USG condemned military tribunals used by Peru, stating that "[d]efense attorneys do not have access to evidence, nor can they interview police or military witnesses (to protect their identities) prior to or during the trial." 1996 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.
. Right to Appeal
. USG noted with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo that "Mocal human rights groups expressed concern at the summary nature of the justice dispensed by this military court, with no automatic right of appeal to a higher court . . . ." 1998 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.
)=. USG noted with regard to Egyptian military tribunals

.for terrorists that although "sentences are subject
to confirmation by the President," "[v]erdicts
cannot be appealed." 1995, 1996 DOS Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices.

.
USG has stated with regard to Eritrea that "[t]he continued handling of civilian cases by these military courts raised problems of due process because of the . . . denial of the right to appeal. Denial of due process has been a problem on occasion for critics of the Government . . ." 1998 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

.
USG criticized Iraq and noted that "Many cases appear to end in summary execution, although defendants may appeal to the President for clemency." 1995, 1996 DOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

.
USG has noted in the case of Jordan that "[d]efendants in the State Security Court have the right of appeal to the Court of Cassation, which is authorized to review the testimony, evidence, and judgment. Appeals are automatic for cases involving the death penalty. . . . and State Security Court decisions are reviewed by the Court of Cassation." 1996 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

.
USG noted in the case of insurgents tried in Sierra

Leone that "all were executed without right of
01/04/02

8

Created by BOWKERDW, L/FUNCLASSIFIED x7-0850 DOS-001043
appeal and probably without due process of law."

1992 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

USG criticized Thailand, noting that "[a] separate
military court hears criminal and civil cases
pertaining to military personnel as well as those
brought during periods of martial law. A serious
flaw in providing due process rights is the lack of
appeal from decisions of a military court." 1995
DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

(2) USG Statements (more complete; organized by. country)

USG on Algeria:

"Under the state of emergency, military courts are
authorized to try civilians accused of terrorism. .
. . In February the Government abolished three
special courts established to try terrorism and
subversion cases. Their jurisdiction was transferred
to the ordinary criminal courts. . . . About half
of the prison population is being held for alleged
terrorist offenses. The courts continued to hand
down death sentences to those found guilty of
terrorism; however, executions were suspended in
1993. . . . The law requires that the Government
provide lawyers for indigent defendants. Lawyers
representing Islamists have received death threats."
1995 DOS Country Report for Algeria.

›. USG on Colombia:.

"The system of justice incorporates regional or
public order jurisdictions to prosecute cases
involving the crimes of narcotics trafficking,
terrorism, kidnapping, subversion, and extortion. In
these courts, faceless prosecutors, judges,
witnesses, and attorneys act under cover of
anonymity for security reasons. . . . It was still
difficult for defense attorneys to impeach or cross­examine anonymous witnesses, and often they did not
have unimpeded access to the State's evidence. As a
result of such concerns, judges may no longer base a
conviction solely on the testimony of an anonymous
witness. Prosecutors, judges, and witnesses
generally maintained, however, that the protection
of anonymity that is provided by a faceless system

01/04/02.9

Created by BOWKERDW, L/PUNCLASSIFIED

x7-0850

DOS-001044
is essential to the successful investigation and
prosecution of human rights cases in a country were
violence is endemic and acts of revenge against
those prosecuting violent crime may be expected."
1996 DOS Country Report.

USG on Congo, The Democratic Republic of:

"[I]n practice the judiciary was not independent of
the executive branch, which could and did manipulate
it. . . . The judiciary includes . . . a new
military tribunal . . . [which] ordered the
executions of dozens of soldiers and civilians in
Bukavu, Goma, Kinshasa, and Lubumbashi during the
year for various violent criminal offenses,
:including murder and armed robbery. Local human
rights groups expressed concern at the summary
nature of the justice dispensed by this military
court, with no automatic right of appeal to a higher
court, and many of the accused apparently lacking
defense counsel. The tribunal also began to sentence
civilians for nonviolent offenses with political
overtones." 1998 DOS Country Report for Democratic
Republic of Congo.

"Only this week we learned of another sixteen
executions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Fourteen of those executed were civilians who were
condemned to death by a military tribunal and
without any semblance of due process. This is
unacceptable." Statement of Ambassador Howard
Wolpe's, Special Envoy for the Great Lakes, before .
the House Committee on International Relations
Subcommittees on International Operations and Human
Rights and on Africa, March 5, 1998.

USG on Cuba:

"Military tribunals assume jurisdiction for certain
counterrevolutionary cases. The law and trial
practices do not meet international standards for
fair public trials.,Almost all cases are tried in
less than a day; there are no jury trials. While
most trials are public, trials are closed when state
security allegedly is involved. . . . Criteria for
presenting evidence . . . are arbitrary and

discriminatory. Often the sole evidence provided,

01/04/02 10

Created by BOWKERDW, L/PFINCLASSIFIED x7-0850 DOS-001045
particularly in political cases, is the defendant's confession, usually obtained under duress and without the legal advice or knowledge of a defense lawyer. The authorities regularly deny defendants access to their lawyers until the day of the trial.
*Several dissidents who have served prison terms reported that they were tried and sentenced without counsel and were not allowed to speak on their own behalf. . . . Attorneys have reported reluctance to defend those charged in political cases due to fear of jeopardizing their own careers. 1998 DOS Country Report for Cuba.
. USG on Egypt:
. "fClases involving terrorism and national security may be tried in military or State Security Courts, in which the accused do not receive all the Constitutional guarantees of the judicial system.
. . The Constitution provides detainees with the right to counsel, at state expense if necessary. . . . However, the military courts do not guarantee civilian defendants due process before an independent tribunal. While military judges are lawyers, they are also military officers appointed by the Minister of Defense and subject to military discipline. They are not independent or as qualified as civilian judges in applying the civilian penal code. . . . Verdicts cannot be appealed; sentences are subject to confirmation by the President." 1995, 1996 DOS Country Reports for Egypt.
USG on Eritrea:

'The continued handling of civilian cases by these
military courts raised problems of due process
because of the absence of defense counsel and denial
of the right to appeal. Denial of due process has
been a problem on occasion for critics of the
Government . . . ." 1998 DOS Country Report for
Eritrea.

USG on Iraq:

"Special security courts have jurisdiction in all
cases involving espionage and treason, peaceful
political dissent, smuggling, currency exchange

01/04/02 11

Created by BOWKERDW, '1UNCLASSIFIED
x7-0850

DOS-001046
violations, and drug trafficking. . . . military
officers or civil servants with no legal training
head these tribunals, which hear cases in secret.
Authorities often hold defendants incommunicado and
do not permit contact with lawyers. The courts admit
confessions extracted by torture, which often serve'
as the basis for conviction. Many cases appear to
end in summary execution, although defendants may
appeal to the President for clemency." 1995, 1996
DOS Country Reports for Iraq.

A USG on Israel:

A "Cases involving national security may be tried in
either military or civil courts and may be partly or
wholly closed to the public. The Attorney General
determines the venue in such cases. The prosecution
must justify closing the proceedings to the public.
Defendants have the right to be represented by
counsel even in closed proceedings but may be denied
access to some evidence on security grounds.
Convictions may not be based on any evidence denied
to the defense." 1995, 1996 DOS Country Reports for
Israel.

A "Most of the protections afforded by law are not
extended to Palestinian detainees, who fall under
the jurisdiction of military law even if they are
detained in Israel. . . . all Palestinian detainees
held for longer than 1 or 2 days are incarcerated in '
Israel. The Government does, however, obServe some
humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva
Convention with regard to these detainees . .
1996 DOS Country Report for Israel.

A USG on Jordan:

A "The State Security Court is comprised' of panels of
three judges, who may be either civilians or
military officers. It frequently restricts public
attendance at its trials. Defendants tried in the
State Security Court are often held in pretrial
detention without access to lawyers, although they
are visited by representatives of the ICRC. In the
State Security Court, judges have inquired into
allegations that defendants were tortured and have
permitted the testimony of physicians regarding

01/04/02 12
Created by BOWKERDW, L/P_It
x7-0850 UNCLASSIFIED

DOS-001047
these allegations. To date the Court has not
invalidated confessions obtained under duress, but

on review, the Court of Cassation has ruled that the

State Security Court cannot issue a death sentence

on the basis of such a confession alone . . . .

Defendants in the State Security Court have the

right of appeal to the Court of Cassation, which is

authorized to review the testimony, evidence, and

judgment. Appeals are automatic for cases involving

the death penalty. Defense attorneys have

challenged the appointment of military judges to the

State Security Court to try civilian cases as

contrary to the concept of an independent judiciary.

Military judges appear to receive adequate training
in civil law and court procedure, and State Security

Court decisions are reviewed .by the Court of
Cassation." 1996 DOS Country Report for Jordan.

. USG on Morocco:
. "(S)erious state security cases . . ... may be brought before a specially constituted military tribunal. This court is subservient to other branches of the Government, notably the military and the Ministry of Interior. . . . Aside from external pressures, the court system is also subject to resource constraints. Consequently, criminal defendants charged with less serious offenses often receive only cursory hearings, with judges relying on police reports to render decisions. Although the Government provides an attorney at public expense for serious crimes (i.e., when the offense carries a maximum sentence of over 5 years), appointed attorneys often provide inadequate representation.
. . . In June eight Sahrawi youths were put on
trial for participating in a demonstration in
Laayoune, Western Sahara, calling for Western
Saharan independence. Although the eight were
civilians, they were tried in a military court in a
closed trial that reportedly lasted 3 hours over a
:3-day period. The court found the eight guilty of

'threatening the security of the state' and
sentenced them up .to 20 years in prison. The
sentences were later commuted to 1 year by the King.
At the trial, the defendants claimed that they had
been tortured during pretrial detention . . . ."
1995, 1996 DOS Country Reports for Morocco.

01/04/02 13 •

Created by BowKERDW, L/EUNCLASSIFIED
x7-0850

DOS-001048
A USG on Nigeria:

A "Military tribunals denied due process to political
and other prisoners, prompting both the United
Nations General Assembly and the UN Human Rights
Commission to condemn the Nigerian Government and
call upon it to respect fundamental human rights and
restore civilian rule. The government's November 10,
1995 execution of environmental activist Ken Saro-
Wiwa and the Ogoni Nine met with swift international
response, including the imposition of additional
sanctions by the United States, the European Union,
and the Commonwealth." July, 1998 Department of
State Dispatch: Statements by the Assistant
Secretary for African Affairs, Susan E. Rice, before
the House International Relations Committee,
Washington, DC; June 25, 1998.

"The United States. deplored death sentences imposed
against six Nigerians alleged to be coup plotters
and it urged Nigeria's military government Wednesday
not to carry out the sentences. State Department
spokesman James Foley said the proceedings"in the
military tribunal the convicted and sentenced the
men failed to meet minimum international standards
of due process. He said 'hasty resort to
irreversible penalties' will only further erode the
world's already diminished confidence in the
Nigerian government's willingness to administer
justice fairly and equitably." AP Online April 29,
1998.

"The United States expressed its 'deep concern'
Monday about Nigeria's conviction and sentencing of
10 alleged coup plotters, including a former
president. The trials were carried out in secret .

. . . State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns
said in a statement issued late Monday that the
United States urges the Nigerian government to grant
clemency to the alleged plotters and to conduct any
further proceedings in public. The 10 Nigerians,
including former president Olusegun Obasanjo and his
former deputy Shehu Musa Yar 'Adua, were convicted
by a special military tribunal in a secret process
that Burns said violated international norms of due
process. 'We have repeatedly called on the

01/04/02 14

Created by BOWKERDW, LIFFINCLASSIFIED
x7-0850

DOS-001049
government of Nigeria to respect its stated

. commitment to due process by providing fair, open,
public trials, for all persons detained or charged
with criminal conduct, including those detained or
charged in connection with the alleged March coup
plotting,' Burns said. 'We urge the government of
Nigeria to respect international norms relating to
human rights, including the universal declaration of
human rights,' he said." Deutsche-Presse Agentur,
July 18, 1995.

. USG on Northern Ireland:
. "In Northern Ireland, special "emergency" restrictions affect due process. Under the 1973 EPA, the Government suspended the right to trial by jury there for certain terrorist-related offenses because terrorists had intimidated the judiciary, jurors, and lawyers. Such offenses are tried instead by a "Diplock Court," a judge presiding without a jury. If the decision is to convict, the judge must • justify it in a document that becomes part of the court record, and an appellate court may overturn it on substantive as well as legal grounds. The Diplock Courts have been widely criticized. The EPA also permits the use of uncorroborated confessions, but they cannot be the sole basis for conviction anywhere in the UK. The 1988 Criminal Evidence Order allows judges to draw an adverse inference when a suspect refuses to answer questions." 1995 DOS Country Report for United Kingdom.
.
"In February the [European Court of Human Rights]
found in John Murray v. United Kingdom that the
denial in Northern Ireland of access to counsel for
the first 48 hours in a situation where the right of
the defense might thus be irretrievably prejudiced
was, whatever the justification, incompatible with
article 6 of the European convention on human
rights." 1996 DOS Country Report for United
Kingdom.

. USG on Pakistan:
)=. "The Government may refer cases involving terrorism
. . . or similar offenses to special terrorism
courts . . . . Many legal experts believe the

01/04/02 25
Created by BOWKERDW,
x7-0850
LINCLASSIFIED

DOS-001050
special courts do not provide a fair trial. They

maintain that the short time for investigations and

trial procedures have effectively repudiated the

presumption of innocence. . . . Moreover, the

special courts may deny bail if the judges decide

that the accused may have reasonably committed an

offense. . . . Government officials . . . maintain

that . . . the rules of evidence apply in the

courts, defendants have the right to counsel, and

the judges must meet the same standards as those

appointed to a high court. Defendants also have the

right to appeal, but only one appeal is allowed."
1995, 1996 DOS Country Reports for Pakistan.

D USG on Peru;

. "Proceedings in military courts that hear terrorism and treason cases do not meet internationally accepted standards for due process. Military trials are closed to the public and are carried out in secrecy by military judges whose identities are not revealed in court. Defense attorneys do not have access to evidence, nor can they interview police or military witnesses (to protect their identities) prior to or during the trial. There are reports that many of the judges are active duty line officers with no legal background. . . . Military tribunals in theory must pass judgment within 10 days. Defendants may appeal a. verdict to the Superior Military Council, which has 10 days to make a decision. The Supreme Council of Military Justice must act on a final appeal within 5 days, although this calendar is subject to delays. . . . The sentencing in January to life imprisonment of U.S. citizen Lori Berenson on treason charges focused additional international attention on the lack of due process in the faceless military tribunals." 1996 DOS Country Report for Peru.
.
"While terrorism cases are tried in civilian courts, cases of treason or aggravated terrorism may be tried only before military courts. . . At the military superior court and Supreme Court levels, a significant number of judges are active-duty line officers with little or no professional legal training. . . . Defendants in treason cases who are found not guilty by a military court may be
01/04/02 16
Created by BOWKERDW,
PtTNCLASSIFIED
x7-0850

DOS-001051
remanded to a civilian court for a second trial on terrorism charges based on the same facts, a practice criticized by human rights monitors as double jeopardy. . . . Even though the "faceless" military and civilian courts were abolished in 1997, and the identities of judges in treason and terrorism cases no longer are concealed, . . . ciiticismo si-411 are relevant in regard to the basic unfairness, lack of openness, and shortcomings in due process that are characteristic of the military justice system, in particular." 1998 DOS Country Report for Peru.
With respect to the Lori Berenson case: "Berenson

. was not tried by a public civilian court in 1996,
nor was she allowed to cross-examine the witnesses
who testified against her, as called for by
international legal norms, the State Department said
that year. The military trial was conducted by

`faceless judges' who wore masks, a system created
by the anti-terrorist legislation enacted under
Fujimori's 10-year iron-fisted regime." Inter-Press
Service, June 21, 2001.

. With respect to the Lori Berenson case: "Let me reiterate that the United States considers that Miss Berenson's trial by a military tribunal did not meet minimal international standards of due process. We continue to raise this issue with the Peruvian Government, and will continue to do so and hopefully will have some success in this area." U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing with James Rubin, January 23, 1998.
With respect to the Lori Berenson case: President
Clinton "stated no opinion on her guilt or innocence
but was interested in insuring that she was afforded
due process and was concerned about her having been
tried in a military, as opposed to civilian, court,"
a White House spokesman said. AP News Service, May
22, 1996.

. USG on Sierra Leone:
• "In December the NPRC issued Decree No. 12,
establishing a military tribunal which may try both
military and civilians for serious crimes (including

01/04/02 17
Created by BOWKERDW, L/PrIN
x7-0850 CLASSIFIED

DOS-001052
treason, murder, manslaughter, and aggravated
robbery). The tribunal's decision may not be
appealed, and punishment may include the death
penalty. . . . During the last week of 1992, an
estimated 29 persons, both civilian and military,
were summarily executed by military firing squads.
They were accused of participating in a failed coup..
While some were tried in secret by a military
tribunal, all were executed without right of appeal
and probably without due process of law." 1992 DOS
Country Report for Sierra Leone.

USG on Syria:

"The two security courts are called the Supreme
State Security Court (SSSC), which tries political
and national security cases . . . [the SSSC
operates] under the state ofemergency, not ordinary
law, and [does] not observe constitutional
guarantees. Charges against defendants in the SSSC
are often vague. Many defendants appear to be tried
for exercising normal political rights, such as free
speech. . . . Nonetheless, the Government contends
that the SSSC tries only persons who have sought to
use violence against the State. Under SSSC
procedures, defendants are not present during the
preliminary, or investigative, phase of the trial,
when evidence is presented by the prosecutor. Trials
are usually closed to the public. Lawyers are not
guaranteed adequate access to their clients, and are
excluded from the court during their clients'
initial interrogation by the prosecutor. Lawyers
submit written defense pleas, rather than oral
presentations. The State's case is often based on .
confessions, but defendants have not been allowed to
argue that their confessions were-coerced. There is­no known instance in which the Court ordered a
medical examination for a defendant who claimed that
he was tortured. . . . Defendants do not have the
right to appeal SSSC verdicts, but sentences are
reviewed by the Minister of Interior, who may
ratify, nullify, or alter sentences. The President
may also intervene in the review process." 1995 DOS
Country Report on Syria.

USG on Thailand:

01/04/02. 18
Created by BOWKERDW,

L/tINCLASSIFIED
x7-0850

DOS-001053
"A separate military court hears criminal and civil
cases pertaining to military personnel as well as
those brought during periods of martial law. A
serious flaw in providing due process rights is the
lack of appeal from decisions of a military court."
1995 DOS Country Report for Thailand.

USG on Turkey:

"State Security Courts are composed of
panels of five members--two civilian judges, one
military judge, and two prosecutors--and try
defendants accused of crimes such as terrorism . .

. Their verdicts may be appealed only to a
specialized department of the High Court of Appeals.
. . . Those accused . . . may be detained twice as
long before arraignment as other defendants. The
heavy caseload often means that cases drag on for
years. These courts may hold closed hearings and may
admit testimony obtained during police interrogation
in the absence of counsel.", 1996 DOS Country Report
for Turkey.

USG on Venezuela:

"Military courts can try civilians in cases of armed
subversion . . . . Military courts are subject to a
requirement for a speedy trial and a statute of
limitations similar to that of civilian courts.
Persons convicted by a military court have the same
right of appeal to the Supreme Court as do those
convicted by the civilian system. Military courts,
however, are significantly different from civilian
courts in that by law the President must review
every case after the initial investigation stage and
decide if that case will go to trial. Human rights
groups assert that this gives the executive
excessive power to intervene in military cases. In
addition, the Supreme Court selects military judges
from a list of candidates provided by the Minister
of Defense, a process that links the careers of
military judges to the high command. The tendency of
military judges to be responsive to the views of
their military leaders, to maintain procedural
secrecy, and to act slowly in high-profile cases in
which the military is implicated make impartial or

01/04/02 19

Created by BOWKERDW, L/PUNCLASSIFIED

x7-0850

DOS-001054
timely trials for defendants unlikely." 1996, 1997,
1998 DOS Country Reports for Venezuela.

01/04/02 20
Created by BOWKERDW,
x7-0850

LONCLASSIFIED
DOS-001055