## Facts

- Carlo Sommacal, a Swiss conscript, attended a mandatory refresher-training course commanded by Colonel Carlo Baumann.
- After the course ended and Sommacal returned to civilian life, he wrote and published a newspaper article sharply criticizing the course and attributing responsibility to Baumann.
- A military investigation concluded the most serious allegations were exaggerated or untrue and found no punishable offenses during the course.
- The Chief Auditor initiated military criminal proceedings alleging (1) defamation (an “honor offense”) against Baumann and (2) separate military-regulation offenses tied to Sommacal’s conduct during the refresher course.
- Sommacal challenged the military court’s personal jurisdiction over the defamation charge, arguing the publication was a civilian act occurring after active service.

## Issues

1. Whether a conscript may be tried in a military court for defamation committed after active service through a civilian newspaper publication, merely because the alleged victim is a superior officer and the subject relates to prior service.
2. How to construe statutory provisions defining the scope of military criminal jurisdiction when ordinary criminal offenses intersect with military-related subject matter.

## Decision

- The court held that the military judiciary lacked personal jurisdiction over the defamation charge based solely on Sommacal’s post-service civilian publication.
- Jurisdiction over the alleged defamation belonged to the ordinary criminal courts.
- The court left intact military jurisdiction over alleged offenses committed during the refresher course itself (e.g., service-related disciplinary or obedience violations).
- The complaint was granted in part, and the military authorities’ assertion of jurisdiction over the defamation charge was annulled.

## Legal Principles

- Military criminal jurisdiction over conscripts requires a direct functional connection to military duties and attaches primarily to conduct occurring while the accused is subject to active service obligations.
- Post-service civilian conduct does not become triable in military court solely because it concerns military matters or allegedly injures the honor of a superior officer; the relevant question is whether the act was committed in the capacity of a soldier.
- Special military jurisdiction must be construed narrowly; uncertainty about coverage should be resolved in favor of ordinary criminal courts.
- Ending active service does not defeat military jurisdiction for offenses committed while on duty; it only limits jurisdiction over later, civilian acts.

## Conclusion

The court limited military jurisdiction to service-connected conduct, holding that a conscript’s after-service civilian publication allegedly defaming a superior officer must be prosecuted, if at all, in the ordinary criminal courts, while on-duty disciplinary allegations remain within military jurisdiction.


Sommacal v. Chief Auditor of the Army & Confed. Mil. Dep’t, BGE 97 I 143 (Switz. 1971)