A/HRC/28/32 33. Mr. Naluwairo explained that there was no general right to appeal decisions of military courts to civilian courts. No appeal could be made from the Court Martial Appeals Court to any other court, except in cases against convictions involving the death penal and life imprisonment that had been upheld by the Court Martial Appeals Court. C. Personal jurisdiction of military courts 34. The Vice-Chairperson of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Jasminka Dzumhur, referred to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and in particular to article 16, paragraph 2, which stated that persons alleged to have committed any act of enforced disappearance were to be tried “only by the competent ordinary courts in each State, and not by any other special tribunal, in particular military courts.” 35. In its country visit reports, the Working Group had consistently recommended that the jurisdiction of civilian courts should be guaranteed in all matters relating to enforced disappearances and violations of human rights, regardless of whether the perpetrator was a member of the military.8 36. In December 2010, the Working Group published a report on best practices on enforced disappearances in domestic criminal legislation, which highlighted best practices in the area of legislation and provided that enforced disappearances could never be considered an in-service offence and that military or other special courts had no jurisdiction on enforced disappearances.9 37. Article 3 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance required the adoption of preventative measures, which included not establishing military jurisdiction over crimes of enforced disappearance. In its country visits, the Working Group had found situations in which national legislation prohibited military personnel from being subjected to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. 10 In these cases, the Working Group had consistently emphasized how military jurisdiction could be a factor of impunity for human rights violations, given that military courts lacked the necessary independence and impartiality to address human rights violations. 11 38. Ms. Dzumhur stated that the exclusion of the competence of military jurisdiction was also essential during the investigation phase. In one country visit report, the Working Group had recommended that the State should ensure that civilian prosecution services conduct serious and prompt investigations into all complaints of human rights violations, including enforced disappearances by military personnel. 12 39. Ms. Dzumhur pointed out that article 16 (1) of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance provided that persons alleged to have committed an enforced disappearance should be suspended from any official duties during the investigation. 40. Eugene Fidell, Professor at Yale University Law School, stated that the goals of military justice should be to advance national security by ensuring discipline in the military; 8 9 10 11 12 See for example A/HRC/19/58/Add.2, para. 98. A/HRC/16/48/Add.3, para. 62 (l). A/HRC/22/45/Add.2, para. 74. Ibid, paras. 37 and 74. See also A/HRC/19/58/Add.2, para. 38. A/HRC/19/58/Add.2, para. 98. Mexico subsequently abolished the military jurisdiction for the crime of enforced disappearance. 9