A/HRC/28/32 51. Article 5 of the Code further provides that military courts have jurisdiction over both ordinary crimes committed by military personnel and ordinary crimes committed against military personnel. In addition, article 6 of the Code provides that “in the case of prosecution for offences under ordinary law committed by military personnel while offduty and where one party does not belong to the army, the prosecutor or the investigating judge of ordinary courts should defer the charges against the member of the army to the competent military court of first instance”. Mr. Benarbia added that military tribunals tried the majority of cases involving human rights violations committed by security and military personnel in Tunisia, including cases of unlawful killings and torture and other ill-treatment committed before and in the context of the uprising from December 2010 to January 2011. 52. Mr. Benarbia explained that, in Morocco, the military courts of the armed forces, in times of peace, had jurisdiction over all crimes and infractions concerning all members of the military, including persons defined by Royal Decree No.1-56-270 as in “active service”. Jurisdiction also extended to all persons who, regardless of whether they are members of the military, commit a crime against a member of the armed forces or equivalent bodies, or who commit a crime involving one or more members of the armed forces as their conspirators or accomplices. 53. Mr. Benarbia concluded by drawing attention to the recent positive developments in Tunisia and Morocco. In Tunisia, the 2014 Constitution restricted the jurisdiction of military courts to military offences. In Morocco, draft law No. 108-13 limiting the jurisdiction of military courts to military personnel for military offences had been approved by the first chamber of the Parliament. 54. In the discussion that followed, the representative of Canada stated that, in his country, military courts had jurisdiction of over civilians only in limited circumstances, where it was in the best interests of the individual. The representative of Egypt acknowledged that the issue of trial of civilians had been problematic prior to 2011, but that the situation had since improved. The representative of Cuba explained that military courts were an integral part of the judicial system in Cuba, and that there had been human rights violations at the Guantanamo military base. The delegate of Morocco explained that Morocco had recently adopted a draft law that excluded civilians from military courts. Professor Nikitin stated that the next step that needed to be taken was to integrate common principles into the judicial systems of all States. D. Subject matter jurisdiction of military courts 55. Christina Cerna, a former Principal Human Rights Specialist at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, stated that issues of military jurisdiction generally involved two situations: questions relating to the treatment or trial of civilians by military courts; and military court proceedings, or the lack thereof, against military officials charged with serious violations of human rights. 56. Concerning the trial of civilians in military courts, she referred to the judgement of 25 November 2004 of the case Lori Berenson v. Peru, where the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that military courts should not try civilians labelled as “terrorists”, notwithstanding article 173 of the 1993 Constitution of Peru, which provided that military courts could not try civilians except in cases of terrorism or treason. In the judgement of 30 May 1999 of the case Castillo Petruzzi v. Peru, the Court had held that “domestic laws that place civilians under the jurisdiction of the military courts are a violation of the principles of the American Convention”. In the judgements of 29 September 1999 of Cesti Hurtado v. Peru, and of 22 November 2005 of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, the Court held that retired military officials were civilians and could not be tried in military courts. On 30 December 12