A recent decision by the Military High Administrative Court (AYİM) that bypassed an earlier Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) decision has reignited discussions about the double-headed judicial system in Turkey, with many observers calling for an end to the separate military judiciary.

The discussion started again last week when three high-ranking military officers suspected of involvement in the Sledgehammer coup plot were promoted by AYİM despite an earlier YAŞ decision whereby the men were skipped over for promotion.The decision issues a stay of execution on the YAŞ decision that did not promote the three men. Legal experts have spoken out against this ruling, saying the decision should have no effect. Constitutional law expert Yüksel Metin recalls that the military judiciary has issued controversial rulings in the past that are similar to this one concerning suspect coup generals, although they are only authorized to make administrative decisions. Stating that the existence of the military judiciary is a handicap for the Turkish judicial system, he says the recently approved constitutional reform package, which also contained an article on military courts, is insufficient since it should have totally abolished the military judiciary. “The package approved in the Sept. 12 referendum restricted the scope of the military judiciary a little, but it should be abolished,” he said.The amendments to Article 145, which regulates the duties of military courts, simply limits the jurisdiction of military courts at a very minimal level by eliminating the military zone criterion, which enables military courts to handle almost all crimes if those crimes are committed in military zones. Other criteria that define the jurisdiction of military courts -- such as the military criminal criterion, the criterion for military personnel committing crimes against other military personnel and the criterion for crimes connected with military service and duties -- remain the same. However, jurists say military courts and disciplinary courts, which only try soldiers charged with improper military conduct, such as disobeying orders, should have been stripped of their status as constitutional bodies and, as a result, Article 145 should have been completely abolished, while the jurisdiction of military courts should have been solely limited to crimes involving military discipline.This is in line with various constitutional drafts prepared by various civil society organizations such as the Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists (TUSKON), the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB), the Turkish Bar Association (TBB), the Science Council -- which was set up by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in 2007 to draft a new constitution -- and the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association (TÜSİAD). These associations call for abolishing the separate military judiciary because it runs against the principle of a unified judiciary. In developed countries, separate judicial systems -- except for administrative courts isolated from the rest of the country's judiciary -- are seen as a violation of a single unified judiciary. Although found to be highly controversial, a separate judicial system exclusively for the military remains in place. In the constitutional draft of TÜSİAD, for instance, Article 145 is totally abolished, as it is in the draft of the Science Council. 06 October 2010, WednesdayTANJU ÖZKAYA  İSTANBUL