Last year, in August 2009, we presented a case, which occurred prior to 2009 but came to the higher court in August 2009, to deal with the issue of military jurisdiction. In other words, it was to place limits on military jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court, in a divided vote, decided not to consider the substance of the case. The Prodh Centre had requested that article 57 of the Military Code of Justice, which allows the military to sit in judgment of itself, be declared unconstitutional. The court refused to do it. In fact, the vote was divided. Five ministers said yes, they should do an in-depth study, and six said no, we won't go in depth into the issue. So they didn't.
There are eleven ministers who form part of the Supreme Court. Obviously, the vote was not unanimous, and I think this gave rise to the fact that we saw more public discussion, in addition to the recommendations that came from the international organizations.
We must remember here that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International put out four reports in this regard. The subject, therefore, hasn't been concluded, and discussion will continue. In the meantime, the situation is going to have to change. Very specifically, article 57 of the Military Code of Justice, which doesn't allow victims to have an independent and impartial court, will have to be reformed. I think that's the very essence of the subject.
It doesn't mean that we, the human rights organizations, are against the army. That's not the point. The point is that the army has to submit itself to the rules of a democratic state. And having to submit to the rules of a democratic state means that they have to be accountable. It means that they themselves cannot judge cases of violations of human rights. They have to be judged by an independent tribunal. In that sense, it's very important that this issue also be dealt with in a wider sphere, say at the international level, so that a step forward can be made for democracy.