Military Court Proceedings: A Comparative Study with Proceedings before the Courts of Justice

Abstract

This academic article aims to examine the trial procedures of the Military Courts, their differences from the Courts of Justice, and the implications for the protection of citizens’ rights. Under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, the judiciary is divided into four types of courts: the Courts of Justice, the Administrative Courts, the Military Courts, and the Constitutional Court. In certain categories of cases, jurisdiction may lie with either the Courts of Justice or the Military Courts, depending on the status of the alleged offender-specifically, whether the individual is a member of the armed forces or otherwise falls within the scope prescribed by the Military Court Organization Act. The Military Courts possess distinctive characteristics that differentiate them from other judicial bodies, particularly because they are administratively affiliated with the Ministry of Defence, which forms part of the executive branch. This study adopts
a qualitative research methodology, relying on documentary research, including academic works, journal articles, books, statutes, and relevant from Thai regulations and foreign regulations.

The findings indicate that trial procedures under the Military Court Organization Act B.E. 2498 (1955) differ substantially from those of the Courts of Justice in several respects. These differences include the composition of the bench, which includes military officers; the existence of martial law courts and military courts operating during extraordinary circumstances that do not allow appeals or petitions for review; the prohibition of legal representation in martial law courts; the inability of injured parties to file civil claims connected to criminal cases within military proceedings; and the practice whereby witness examination need not be conducted in the presence of the accused. Moreover, the right of injured persons to participate as co-plaintiffs alongside military prosecutors is restricted, preventing them from independently presenting evidence or conducting litigation. Accordingly, there is a pressing need to establish effective mechanisms to ensure the application of the rule of law within military court proceedings. The author therefore proposes amendments to the Military Court Organization Act B.E. 2498 (1955) and the Ministry of Defence Regulations on Military Judges B.E. 2528 (1985) in order to align military judicial procedures more closely with fundamental human rights principles and to enhance the protection of procedural rights afforded to citizens.