A/HRC/28/32 2010, Chile published Law No. 20.477, which explicitly excluded civilians and minors from the jurisdiction of military tribunals. 57. With regard to impunity for military personnel by either the action or inaction or military courts, Ms. Cerna pointed out that, in the judgement of 14 March 2001 of Barrios Alto v. Peru,14 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that all amnesty provisions were incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights because they were intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance. They were prohibited because they violated non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law. 58. Ms. Cerna also referred to a series of cases involving Mexico where the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights had held that enforced disappearance, rape and other serious violations of human rights should not be subject to military jurisdiction but rather the jurisdiction of civilian courts. 15 She explained that military jurisdiction had been abolished in Argentina following the friendly settlement of 14 August 2006 of the case of Rodolfo Correa Belisle v. Argentina; the general trend in Latin America was indeed to restrict or to abolish military jurisdiction, although some countries, such as Peru and Colombia, were not moving in that direction. 59. The Chairperson of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Emmanuel Decaux, stated that, in the eight years since the submission by the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of its report to the Commission on Human Rights containing the draft principles governing the administration of justice through military tribunals,16 there had been a number of developments. The European Court of Human Rights had referred to the draft principles in its jurisprudence, 17 the Committee had undertaken work on military justice, and the death penalty debate has evolved. 60. Observing that the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance did not make reference to the subject of military justice, Mr. Decaux stated that the Committee on Enforced Disappearances was preparing a statement on this issue. In its concluding observations on Belgium, the Committee had recommended that the State take the necessary legislative measures so that the crime of enforced disappearance was not subject to military jurisdiction in a time of war. 18 Mr. Decaux stated that a number of States, such as France, had eliminated military jurisdiction in peacetime but maintain it during a period of war. He emphasized that it was important to review military codes of justice periodically, even if they were applicable only in time of war. 61. Regarding the trial of civilians by military courts, Mr. Decaux referred to draft principle 5 and to the judgement of 31 May 2011 of the European Court of Human Rights on Içen v. Turkey. In this case, the Court affirmed that a tribunal composed exclusively of military magistrates should only try civilians in exceptional circumstances. The Court emphasized that military jurisdiction should not be used to try civilians unless there existed a compelling reason to justify such a situation, and when there was a clear and predictable legal basis for such action. 14 15 16 17 18 See also Almonacid-Arellanol v. Chile, judgement of 26 September 2006; Gomez-Lund v. Brazil, judgement of 24 November 2010; and Gelman v. Uruguay, judgement of 24 February 2011. Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, judgement of 23 November 2009; Ines Fernandez Ortega v. Mexico, judgement of 30 August 2010; and Valentina Rosendo Cantu v. Mexico, judgement of 31 August 2010. See E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/9. Ergin v. Turkey, judgement of 4 May 2006; Maszni v. Romania, judgement of 21 September 2006. CED/C/BEL/CO/1, para. 22. 13