A/HRC/28/32 12. Umesh Chandra Jha, a retired Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force, gave an overview of military justice in South Asian States, including Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, where 2.4 million military personnel and 1.6 para-military personnel were subject to military justice. The British Indian military law of 1911 was the progenitor of military legal systems in South Asia. The types of trials were, broadly speaking, summary court martial; summary/field general court martial; district court martial; and general court martial. 13. With regard to summary trials, Mr. Jha noted that, for officers up to the rank of major and lower ranks, the accused was not entitled to legal assistance, the rules of evidence were not applicable, proceedings were not open to the public, and there was no right to appeal. Summary punishments for officers and junior commissioned officers could include forfeiture of service/seniority up to 12 months, stoppage of pay and allowances, and reprimand. For personnel below the rank of junior commissioned officer, summary punishment could include detention up to 28 (and in some cases 42 days), field punishment, extra duties, a fine, deprivation of rank, and reprimand. 14. The other types of court martial were based on the convening authority system. Mr. Jha explained that the power of the convening officer included the persons to tried; the charges to be brought; the composition of the court; command over the prosecutor and the officer for the defence, as well as the Judge Advocate General, whose role is to provide advice on legal questions but who does not function as an advocate or a judge; confirmation of the findings and sentence or sending back the proceeding for revision; and deciding on post-confirmation petitions. There was no right to appeal against the decision of the convening authority, although in India, an armed forces tribunal had appellate jurisdiction over courts martial. 15. Mr. Jha pointed out that the armed forces in many South Asian countries, such as Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, had been mandated by security and antiterrorism laws to aid the civilian authorities to address terrorism and militancy. In this context, members of the armed forces in a number of the said States had been accused of serious human rights violations, such as enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, rape, arbitrary detention and torture. To summarize, military law in South Asian countries did not include war crimes as defined under the Rome Statue; the concept of command responsibility had not been incorporated into military law; the right to fair trial as defined in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was not observed; there was a need for manuals on the laws of war; and that civil society doubted the fairness of military trials. Mr. Jha recommended, inter alia, the abolition of summary courts; rationalizing the powers of the convening authority; insulating the Judge Advocate General from the military chain of command; the abolition of degrading or humiliating forms of punishment; legal aid for accused persons during trial and appeal; the establishment of courts of appeals; and updating military legal systems by including the crimes contained in the Rome Statute and the concept of command responsibility. 16. During the discussion, the representative of Belarus stated that, to better ensure fair trial guarantees, States should not use closed or specialized tribunals for suspected terrorists. The representative of Mexico explained that the State had undertaken a reform in 2014 to transfer jurisdiction over alleged human rights violations by military persons to civilian courts. The representative of the Centre for Legal Studies stated that military justice had been used in Argentina and other Latin America countries to secure impunity for military personnel who had committed serious human rights violations. 5