Journal of International Criminal Justice Advance Access originally published online on May 24, 2005
Journal of International Criminal Justice 2005 3(3):749-777; doi:10.1093/jicj/mqi021
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Military Criminal Procedures and Judicial Guarantees
The Example of Switzerland
* Dr iur, LLM, Legal Adviser, Swiss Department of Defence, Staff of the Chief of the Armed Forces, Laws of Armed Conflict Section. This paper was presented at the conference on ‘Human Rights and the Administration of Justice Through Military Tribunals’, held in Geneva, 26–28 January 2004, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists. The views expressed here are those of the author solely. Special thanks go to Brigadier Dieter Weber and Dr. Stefan Flachsmann for their comments [rarnold74{at}hotmail.com].
Since the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, scant attention has been devoted to military tribunals. Only with the creation of the ICTY and the ICTR has civil society started reconsidering the question of which fora might be better suited for trying individuals responsible for war crimes and other gross human rights violations. The aim of this paper is to illustrate the Swiss military judicial system. It analyses, on the one hand, the judicial guarantees provided for in the Swiss Military Penal Code and the Code of Military Penal Procedure. On the other hand, it discusses the judicial guarantees afforded in the only two war-crimes trials held by the Swiss military justice — the G case and the Niyonteze case — which involved civilians with foreign nationality. Finally, the paper argues against the abolition of military judicial systems.
1 The cases were dealt with by the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal of the Far East, respectively.
2 Swiss Military Penal Code (MPC), RS 321.0, available online at http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c321_0.html (visited 21 December 2004).
3 Code of Military Penal Procedure (CMPP), RS 322.1, available online at http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c322_1.html (visited 21 December 2004).
4 G. case, Judgment of the Divisional Military Tribunal I, 14–18 April 1997, Lausanne, available online at http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/groupgst/de/home/peace/kriegsv0/umund/chrechtsprechung.html (visited 21 December 2004).
5 Swiss Military Justice, Information Service, Affaire Fulgence Niyonteze, Judgment, Tribunal de Division 2, 30 April 1999 (Excerpts). This judgment (unpublished) was kindly provided to the author by the Office of the Military Attorney-General. The decisions of the Swiss military justice system are available online at http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/ausdem/oa011/oa009.html (visited 7 February 2005).
6 The Swiss MPC is under review.
7 See the website of the Swiss Military Justice at http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/ausdem/oa011.html (visited 5 February 2005).
8 Another important regulation is the Military Criminal Justice Order (MCJO) of 24 October 1979 RS 322.2, as modified on 29 October 2003 (in force since 1 January 2004), available online at http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/as/2003/4541.pdf (Amtliche Sammlung (AS) 2003, 4541) (visited 21 December 2004). Since 1 March 2004, the Military Disciplinary Code is fully contained in the Military Penal Code. There have been some changes regarding, in particular, the sanctions.
9 Article 13 MCJO, supra note 8. These were formerly known as Divisional Tribunals. The term was changed with the modification of 29 October 2003 of the MCJO.
10 If the accused is incorporated into a unit subject to a court working in a language different from his mother tongue, the Military Attorney-General (MAG) can delegate the case to a different tribunal. Website of the Swiss MJ, at http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/rund/oa011/oa004.html (visited 5 February 2005).
11 Article 17 MCJO, supra note 8.
12 Article 18 MCJO, supra note 8.
13 Article 32 CMPP, supra note 3, and Art. 26 MCJO, supra note 9.
14 Judge Advocates, who bring charges to the court, may sit as single judges in cases involving offences punishable with a maximum of one month's imprisonment or a fine of 1000 Swiss Francs. See the website of the Swiss MJ, supra note 7.
15 Article 2 CMPP, in force since 1 January 2004, available online at http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/as/2003/3957.pdf (visited 22 December 2004), in the Appendix to the new Military Law (Amtliche Sammlung 2003, 3957).
16 Article 20(1) MCJO, supra note 8.
17 The other members are usually civilians called to perform their compulsory military service with the exception of the six newly created professional examining magistrates (since the beginning of 2004).
18 The Departments of Justice and Police, Defence, and Foreign Affairs are currently working on the draft proposal.
19 Switzerland ratified the ICC Statute on 12 October 2001 (which came into force on 1 July 2002).
20 Article 221 MPC, supra note 2, and Art. 46 (2) CMPP, supra note 3.
21 Article 218(3) MPC. See the Loi fédérale du 19 décembre 1958 sur la circulation routière, SR 741.01, available online at http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/c741_01.html (visited 22 December 2004).
22 Article 218 (4) MPC. See the Loi fédérale du 3 Octobre sur les stupéfiants et les substances psychotropes, RS 812.121, available online at http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/c812_121.html (visited 22 December 2004). For example, intentional use of small quantities of drugs and preparatory acts to this while on duty. In this latter case, disciplinary sanctions may be enacted by the disciplinary authorities. As a rule, the military justice system is not invoked. Severe violations of the law on the use of drugs are subject to civil jurisdiction: Art. 218(4) MPC, supra note 2.
23 Article 223 MPC, supra note 2.
24 The source for this summary is S. Flachsmann et al., Tafeln zum Militärstrafrecht (Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, 1999), 53. See also Arts 6 and 220 MPC, supra note 2.
25 On the liability of civilians, see R. Arnold, ‘The Liability of Civilians under IHL's War Crimes Provisions’, in A. McDonald et al. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2001), Vol. 5 (forthcoming); P. Popp, Kommentar zum Militärstrafgesetz vom 13.Juni 1927-Besonderer Teil (St Gallen: Dike Verlag, 1992), 559.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 See R. Arnold, ‘Training with the Opposition: The Status of the "Free Iraqi Forces" in the US’ War Against Saddam Hussein’, 63 Heidelberg Journal of International Law (2003) 631–652, at 642.
29 See P. Popp, supra note 25, at 131ss.
32 Neutrality in general, not only that of Switzerland. Ibid., at 543, 
4.
33 Ibid. See also Niyonteze Appeal Case, Swiss Military Appeal Tribunal 1A, 26 May 2000, at 27, available online at http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/ausdem/oa011/oa009.Par.0025.DownloadFile.tmp/Urteil_N_2_Instanz.pdf (visited 7 February 2005).
34 For example, violations of the Hague Convention of 14 May 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict; Art. 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (GCs); Additional Protocol II of 1977. These apply also in non-international conflicts. See Marco Sassoli, ‘Le génocide rwandais, la justice militaire suisse et le droit international’, 2 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht (2002) 151–178, at 164.
35 M. Sassoli, supra note 34, at 162.
36 Niyonteze Appeal Case, supra note 33, at 28.
37 On the several categories of violations of the laws of armed conflict and their repression, see R. Arnold, ‘The Development of the Notion of War Crimes in Non-international Conflicts through the Jurisprudence of the UN Ad Hoc Tribunals’, 3 Humanitäres Völkerrecht-Informationsschriften (2002) 134–142, at 135.
38 This may apply when a prisoner of war did not receive the pay foreseen by Art. 60 GC III. See Marco Sassoli, supra note 34, at 162.
39 Article 29(2) CMPP, supra note 3.
40 See R. Arnold, supra note 28, at 642; R. Arnold, supra note 25; P. Popp, supra note 25, at 140–141; M. Sassoli, supra note 34, at 174.
41 These are addressed in Arts 115–137b and 141–179 MPC.
43 An exception applies to those on leave, for violations of Arts 115–137 and 147–179 MPC unrelated to their military service.
44 Article 66 of the Swiss Federal Law of 3 February 1995 on the Army and the Military Administration, Art. 2(6) MPC.
45 See Arts 86, 86a, 94–96, 106 and 107 MPC, respectively.
46 Niyonteze Appeal Case, supra note 33, at 30 (reference to the decisions of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, TF 1967 I, 612 and 613).
47 International law has a different definition of civilians and military personnel. See R. Arnold, supra note 28, at 642. The discussion here is limited to the prosecution of foreign military officials. On the legality of the trial of civilians and non-military personnel by military tribunals, see M. Sassoli, supra note 34, at 164. He refers to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, holding that civilians tried by military courts cannot avail themselves of the fair-trial procedures provided by ordinary courts. The Swiss Military Justice system, however, proves the contrary and it should be also observed that the decision of the ECHR dealt with a Turkish Case (Incal v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1572–1573, 70–72).
48 However, even those who are under this obligation, but who commit offences while off duty, are generally subject to the ordinary legislation. S. Flachsmann et al., supra note 24, at 5.
49 Thus, a foreign soldier, suspected of having committed a common crime (e.g. murder) under the MPC, cannot be tried by Swiss military courts. The competence stays with the ordinary courts, which will prosecute him for the same charge but pursuant to the ordinary penal code. Alternatively, the accused may be extradited and tried by the (military) courts of his homeland.
50 See Brig. Dieter Weber (Military Attorney-General), ‘Kein sicherer Hafen für Kriegsverbrecher: die Rolle der Schweizer Militärjustiz in Strafverfahren’, Neue Zürcher Zeitung (2003).
51 Article 220(1) MPC, supra note 2, Art. 6 MPC.
53 These are: crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression (still to be defined). See the Message of the Swiss Federal Council of 2001, IStGH–Botschaft, 7 Federal Journal (Bundesblatt–BBL) (2001) 391–570, at 489.
54 See M. Sassoli, supra note 34, at 163.
55 Arts 264 and 340 Swiss Penal Code, RS 311.0, available online at http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c311_0.html (visited 22 December 2004) and Arts 2 and 7 MPC, supra note 2.
56 Affaire Fulgence Niyonteze, supra note 5. See also the Appeal Court's decision, supra note 33, at 28ss.
57 Currently, genocide is subject to ordinary justice, whereas war crimes are subject to military justice.
58 Article 221 MPC and Art. 46(2) CMPP.
59 14 Federal Journal (Feuille Fédérale) (2000) 2067–2070, at 2070. The Federal Message on genocide is available in French in 28 Federal Journal (Feuille Fédérale) (1999) 4911–4936.
60 Article 84 GC III is respected too. According to this provision, a prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the laws of the Detaining Power with respect to the offence allegedly committed by the prisoner of war permit the ordinary courts to try its own members of the armed forces. This norm only applies to states engaged in a conflict. In wartime, both foreign and Swiss military personnel are subject to the MT's jurisdiction.
61 Brigadier Dieter Weber, ‘The Implementation of the Law of Armed Conflict: National Measures’, written summary of a speech delivered on Friday 29 October 1999 on the occasion of the Swiss Seminar on the Law of Armed Conflict, 2.2.2., available online at http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/GST/KVR/d/index.htm (visited 22 December 2004).
62 For a summary, see the website of the Swiss Military Justice at http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/ausdem/oa011/oa006.html.
63 For English, see http://www.admin.ch/ch/itl/rs/1/index.htm (visited 22 December 2004).
64 Article 14(2) ICCPR; Art. 6(2) ECHR.
66 Article 14(1) ICCPR; Art. 6 ECHR.
67 Article 14(3)(c) ICCPR; Art. 5(3) and 5(4) ECHR.
68 This is because it is considered to be lex generalis. S. Flachsmann et al., supra note 24, at 16; Art. 7(1) ECHR.
69 Article 16 CMPP, supra note 3. See Federico Andreu-Guzmàn, Military Jurisdiction and International Law (Geneva: International Commission of Jurists, 2003), 152.
70 Article 14(3)(a) ICCPR, Art. 5(2) ECHR Flachsmann/Weherenberg, ‘Aussageverweigerunsrecht und Informationspflicht’, 97 Schweizerische Juristenzeitung (SJZ) (2001), at 313 ss.
71 Article 14(3)(b) ICCPR, Art. 6(c) ECHR. Under Art. 99(3) CPPM, military courts may refuse, on national security grounds, the defence lawyer proposed by the accused, who, in this case, is invited to choose another one. The accused can already invoke the right to be assisted by a lawyer at the ordinary inquiry stage (Art. 109 CPPM). The presence of a defence lawyer is compulsory during the hearings (Art. 127 CPPM).
72 Article 14(3)(d) ICCPR. Under Art. 130(1) CPPM, the accused must be present throughout the debate proceedings. However, if he fails to present himself, notwithstanding regular invitation, and with no sufficient excuse, a decree to be brought to the proceedings can be issued. If he cannot be retrieved or if the tribunal renounces his or her presence, the procedure in absentia comes into play (Art. 131(2) and Art. 155ff CPPM). An interesting case on this matter and the principle of presumption of innocence is the decision of the MCC of 6 September 2000, Vol. 12, No. 18, available online at http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/ausdem/oa011/oa009/oa009m.Par.0007.DownloadFile.tmp/Entscheid%20018.pdf. The case dealt with a judgment in absentia, pursuant to Art. 155(3) CMPP, following a serviceman's failure to present himself at a refresher course on 12 October 1998. The unit commander communicated his absence to the Swiss Military Department. The inquiries concluded that the accused had left Switzerland, presumably for the USA. Neither his parents nor the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) knew of his whereabouts. Following several negative solicitations, the President of Divisional Tribunal 11 invited the accused to the main trial proceedings, charging him with several violations of duty services. The invitation was published in the Federal Journal (Bundesblatt). The accused did not reply. Thus, the Divisional Tribunal 11 sentenced him in absentia. Pursuant to Art. 155(3) CMPP, sentences in absentia can either be an acquittal or a condemnation. Since the Divisional Tribunal could not prove beyond doubt that the accused had de facto violated the MPC, in that he may, for example, have been dead and therefore been unable to attend the military refresher course, it acquitted him. The judge advocate (Auditor) brought the case to the MCC. This concluded that the only thing known to the authorities was that the accused had failed to attend two compulsory military repetition courses and violated the duty to present himself. The other known thing was that he had left the country in 1998. However, since March 1998, his whereabouts had been unknown both to his close relatives and the Swiss authorities. Therefore, it was questionable whether he could respond to his deeds. The options of the Divisional Tribunal were limited. Unlike the ordinary procedure, the in absentia procedure does not provide for the chance to close a case for formal reasons or lack of evidence (see 4(a) of the MCC judgment, (Einstellen des Verfahrens)). The argument of the legislator to justify this difference was that the proceedings must be concluded at some stage ( 4(b) of the MCC judgment, supra). On the other hand, a deferral of the proceedings would have only made sense if the place of residence of the accused had been known. Therefore, due to the ambiguity of the situation and the limited choices available in the in absentia proceedings, the MCC decided that the judgment of the Divisional Tribunal 11 was to be upheld and the accused acquitted.
73 Article 109(2) CPPM foresees that in the event of serious offences, defence lawyers ex officio shall be assigned to the accused. See also, Art. 14(3)(d) ICCPR and Art. 6(c) ECHR.
75 Article 95 CPPM. These expenses are to be borne by the Swiss Confederation (Art. 151(4) CPPM). See also, Art. 14(3)(f) ICCPR and Art. 6(e) ECHR.
76 Article 14(4) ICCPR. Under Arts 13–14 and Art. 218(1) MPC, only persons aged over 18 can be tried by military courts. This limitation is important. Recent conflicts like the one in Sierra Leone have seen an increasing involvement of teenaged soldiers. Due to their age, they are not subject to the MPC, even though Art. 4(3) of Additional Protocol II of 1977 states that juveniles aged over 15 may be subject to the laws of war. By default, these juveniles must be tried under the ordinary Swiss Penal Code (Art. 89ff), which, however, does not provide for war crimes.
77 Article 14(6) ICCPR; Art. 5(5) ECHR. A good example is the G. case, discussed below.
78 According to this, no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time at which it was committed: Art. 15(1) ICCPR. This principle was adhered to in the Niyonteze case in relation to the charge of genocide. At the time of the proceedings, Switzerland was not a party to the 1948 Genocide Convention. However, it could have been argued that the prohibition on genocide has customary international-law status. See, for example, Art. 7(2) ECHR and Art. 15(2) ICCPR.
79 Article 122 CPPM. Within 10 days following notification, the condemned and the Military Attorney-General can object to a sentence of condemnation by written declaration to the Military Attorney.
80 Article 156 CPPM. Someone convicted in absentia who presents himself or gets arrested will be presented with a copy of the judgment by the police or the examining magistrate. If he disagrees with it, he can request relief.
81 Article 166 CMPP. The appeal is available against decisions, acts or omissions of the examining magistrate, and decisions on preventive detention, seizure or search, of the presidents of the military tribunals of first instance or appeal. It cannot be invoked against decisions related to the conduct of the trial. This right can only be invoked by the affected person.
82 Article 172ss CMPP. Details can be found in Franz Bollinger, ‘Appellation im Militärstrafprozess’, (Dissertation, on file in Zürich). Appeal is available against first-instance decisions, with the exception of those taken in absentia.
83 Article 184ss CMPP. Cassation is available against judgments of military appeal tribunals (MAT) and decisions concerning their lack of competence; decisions of MAT revoking the conditional suspension of a sentence; and in absentia first-instance judgments.
84 Article 195ss CMPP. Recourse is generally available against first-instance decisions and decisions of the MAT, when neither the right of appeal nor cassation is available. This applies particularly in relation to the execution of suspended sentences, the reintegration into a function, the striking off of an entry in the criminal records, the refusal of the revocation of a decision in absentia, decisions on civil actions, fee charges and indemnities, confiscation and devolution of presents and other advantages, re-admission to the personnel service, and immediate arrest following the communication of the judgment.
86 For a discussion of the pros and cons of the appeal procedure, see Frank Riklin, ‘Die Entwicklung des Rechtsmittelsystems im Militärstrafverfahren der Schweiz in den letzten 150 Jahren’, in Raphaël Barras (ed.), Die schweizerische Militärjustiz: Festschrift zum 150jährigen Jubiläum (Opfikon: Lenticularis AG 1989) 25–40, at 32ss.
87 Maj. Gen. Raphaël Barras, ‘La justice militaire en Suisse: aperçu historique’, in ibid., 9–23, at 22.
88 Articles 100 CMPP and 201 MPC.
92 See the website of the Swiss Military Justice at http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/ausdem/oa011.html.
93 Article 200 CMPP, supra note 3 (in German: Revision). Riklin, supra note 86, at 36.
94 Article 195ss CMPP, supra note 3 (in German: Rekurs) See Maj. Gen. Raphaël Barras, supra note 87, at 23.
95 Article 197(2) CMPP, supra note 3. On the difference between this remedy, the appeal and the cassation, see Riklin, supra note 86, at 36.
97 Riklin, supra note 86, at 37.
101 Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal of 17 March 1971, BGE 97 I 143.
103 Article 223 MPC (conflict of competencies).
104 Reference was made to the Swiss Federal Tribunal's decision, BGE 61 I 127.
105 BGE 97 I 143, 150, available online at http://www.bger.ch/index/jurisdiction/jurisdiction-inherit-template/jurisdiction-recht/jurisdiction-rech-leitentscheide1954.htm (visited 23 December 2004).
106 See in particular Arts 60 and 61 MCJO, supra note 8.
107 Sutter v. Switzerland, ECHR (1984) Series A, No. 74.
109 Sutter v. Switzerland, supra note 107, 14.
110 Two grounds of appeal against were that the regulations on haircuts were incompatible with Art. 8 ECHR and that the military tribunals were not tribunals in the sense of Art. 6 ECHR. See 15 of the decision.
111 Sutter v. Switzerland, supra note 107, 19.
112 This entered into force on 1 January 1980.
113 Articles 48(3) and 149(1) CMPP.
114 Sutter v. Switzerland, supra note 107, at 17.
115 Ibid, 21. Sutter invoked a breach of Art. 6(1) ECHR.
116 Ibid, 24 and 26. The court reasoned that ‘The public character of proceedings before the judicial bodies referred to in Article 6 1 protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny ... ’.
124 G. case, Judgment of the Divisional Military Tribunal I, 14–18 April 1997, Lausanne.
125 During the interrogations, he claimed to the cantonal police of Geneva to call himself Goran G., not Goran Karlica, and to have never been in the camps of Omarska and Keraterm. G. case, supra note 124, at 3. Between 8 May 1995 and 18 April 1997, he was placed in preventive detention. The inquiry concluded that in February 1992, G. had worked in Austria and Germany. See the Decision of the Military Court of Cassation of 5 September 1997, Collection of Decisions of the MCC, Vol. 12(5), at p. 3, 3.
126 On the basis of Arts 2(9), 6, 40, 44, 50, 108 and 109 MPC, and Arts 150–151 CMPP.
127 In particular breaches of the GCs III and IV of 1949, including the two Additional Protocols, supra note 124, at 3.
129 Supra note 124, at 3 (‘en droit’).
130 Ibid., at 4 (‘en droit’): ‘Le doute doit profiter à l’accusé et il sera dont acquitté de tous les chefs d’accusation’.
131 Ibid. (‘Dommages intérêts et tort moral’).
132 Ibid. (‘Dommages intérêts et tort moral’).
133 Decision of the Military Court of Cassation of 5 September 1997, Collection of Decisions of the MCC, Vol. 12(5), at 2. The basis was Art. 195ss CMPP.
135 Decision of the MCC, supra note 133, at 3, 1(a).
137 Decision of the MCC, supra note 133, at 3, 2(a).
139 A similar method is foreseen in the cantonal civil procedures. Ibid., at 3, 2(c).
142 See A.R. Ziegler, ‘Militärkassationsgericht, Entscheid vom 27.4.2001, Yverdon-les-Bains’, 2 Aktuelle Juristische Praxis (2002) 215–219, at 215. See also ibid.
143 In breach of Art. 185(1) CMPP, Art. 29(2) of the Swiss Constitution, and Art. 6 ECHR.
144 Article 185(1)(c)/(f) CMPP, Art. 9 Swiss Constitution, Art. 32(1) and (6) ECHR.
145 Articles 185(1)(c), 147, 181(3) CMPP.
147 Decision of the MCC, supra note 133, at 5, E. He further criticized the sentence of imprisonment.
149 Decision of the MCC, supra note 133, at 12, II(4)(a).
151 Decision of the MCC, supra note 133, at 15, II(5).
156 Article 185(1)(f) CPMM. Pursuant to this, cassation is allowed when the determination of substantial facts in the judgment conflicts with the outcome of the pre-trial discovery.
157 He invoked Art. 9 CPMM (prohibition of arbitrary assessment) and Art. 32(1) of the Swiss Constitution (presumption of innocence).
158 Decision of the MCC, supra note 133, at 18, II(5)(b).
161 Ibid., at 24–25, II(6)(a).
164 For comments, see Sassoli, supra note 34. Decision of MCC, supra note 133, at 45, 9(I). References were made to the jurisprudence of the ICTR.
165 Article 40(1) CMPP. A corresponding provision is contained in Art. 55 PC. MCC Decision, supra note 133, at 45, 10(a).
166 MCC Decision, supra note 133, at 47.
169 That is the declaration of guilt, the sentencing to 14 years of imprisonment for the commission of war crimes and the sentencing to the payment of the court expenses. MCC Decision, ibid., at 49.
170 MCC Decision, ibid., at 51.
171 A. Koller, ‘150 Jahre Militärjustiz’, in R. Barras (ed.), Die schweizerische Militärjustiz, supra note 86, 51–55, at 52.
174 Riklin, supra note 86, at 39.
175 See R. Arnold, supra note 25.
176 A. Koller, supra note 171, at 55.
177 S. Flachsmann, ‘Konsum von Betäubungsmittel im Militärdienst: Konsequenzen eines allfälligen Rückzugs der zivilen Behörden von der Strafverfolgung des Konsums von Betäubungsmitteln nach der Revision des BetmG’, 98 (22) Schweizerische Juristenzeitung (2002) 549–553, at 549.
178 At current stage, violations of the Federal Law on the Use of Drugs fall within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts (Art. 19a), available online at http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/812_121/a19a.html (visited 23 December 2004). This provision applies also to the use of drugs during the military service. Under Art. 7 MPC, servicemen are subject to the ordinary PC for criminal offences that are not contained in the MPC. Exceptions apply only in the event of the use of small quantities of drugs (Art. 218(4) MPC). The draft proposal for the legalization of drugs has not been accepted yet.