## Facts

- Alan Martin, a U.K. national born in 1976, lived in Germany with his family while his father served in the British armed forces stationed there.
- As a juvenile, Martin was accused of murdering a German civilian in Germany.
- British military authorities charged Martin and, while the charge was pending, Martin’s father returned to England and was discharged from the military.
- After the father’s discharge, both Martin and his father were civilians, but the British military nonetheless proceeded to try Martin before a court-martial convened in Germany.
- The court-martial convicted Martin of murder, and he received a life sentence.
- Martin appealed within the military justice appeal route and then to the House of Lords, but his conviction was upheld.
- He applied to the European human rights organs complaining, in substance, that the United Kingdom violated the Convention by trying a civilian by court-martial and by using procedures that did not secure a fair trial; he also raised an Article 3 complaint linked to his court-martial proceedings.
- The application (no. 40426/98) was lodged with the former European Commission of Human Rights and later transferred to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court sought additional submissions in light of related judgments on U.K. courts-martial and adjourned consideration pending developments in that case law.

## Issues

1. Whether Martin’s trial by a British Army court-martial in Germany, despite his civilian status at the time of trial, satisfied Article 6 § 1’s requirement of a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
2. Whether the matters complained of in connection with the court-martial reached the minimum severity required for inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3.

## Decision

- The Court held that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 because the court-martial arrangements applicable at the time did not provide sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality.
- In reaching that conclusion, the Court treated Martin’s case as falling within the line of authorities condemning features of the then-existing U.K. court-martial model, including the relationship between the tribunal and the chain of command and the roles given to military authorities in convening and administering the proceedings.
- The Court did not find that the Article 3 complaint met the high severity threshold required for a finding of inhuman or degrading treatment, and therefore found no violation of Article 3.
- The Court addressed just satisfaction under Article 41 consistent with its approach in comparable court-martial cases, awarding sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs/expenses as appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Article 6 § 1 requires a tribunal that is independent and impartial; independence is assessed by factors such as the manner of appointment, term of office, safeguards against external pressure, and whether the body presents an appearance of independence.
- Impartiality is assessed both subjectively (personal bias) and objectively (whether the arrangements provide sufficient guarantees to exclude legitimate doubt).
- A military tribunal may fall within “tribunal established by law,” but it must still provide Convention-level guarantees of independence and impartiality, including protection against influence connected to the chain of command.
- Article 3 is engaged only where treatment or punishment attains a minimum level of severity; complaints about unfairness in proceedings do not, without more, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.

## Conclusion

Martin v. United Kingdom concerned a juvenile accused of murdering a civilian in Germany who was tried and convicted by a British Army court-martial after he had become a civilian. The European Court of Human Rights held that the court-martial arrangements in force at the time did not provide adequate guarantees of independence and impartiality, breaching Article 6 § 1, but it rejected the Article 3 complaint because the alleged treatment did not meet the Convention’s severity threshold.


Martin v. United Kingdom, 44 Eur. Hum. Rgts. Rptr. 31 (2006)