Violation of Military Custody: Ruling 24919/2025 and the Extension of Prescriptions

In the delicate realm of military law, adherence to rules is paramount. Every service member is bound to observe precise prescriptions, the violation of which can constitute serious offenses. The recent ruling no. 24919, filed on July 7, 2025, by the Court of Cassation (Pres. M. Boni, Rapporteur S. Aprile), offers a crucial clarification on the offense of violation of custody, governed by Article 120 of the Code of Military Penal Law of Peace (CPMP).

Military Custody: Beyond the Specific Order

The offense of violation of custody penalizes a service member who fails to observe the directives issued for a service. It is often questioned whether such prescriptions must be explicitly referenced in the specific order. The ruling under review, by rejecting the appeal of the defendant S. Vergara, addresses precisely this point. The case concerned a service member who had violated directives on arms custody (contained in an internal circular), even though this circular was not mentioned in the service order assigning him a duty in civilian attire with standard armament.

The Fundamental Principle of Ruling 24919/2025

The Supreme Court has reiterated a cornerstone principle: "custody" is not limited to instructions given at the moment, but includes a broader body of rules. Here is the maxim:

For the purpose of establishing the offense of violation of custody, as per art. 120 of the Code of Military Penal Law of Peace, all mandatory prescriptions, general or particular, permanent or temporary, written or verbal, issued for the performance of a specific service to regulate its execution methods, are relevant, regardless of their specific and direct reference in the particular order. (Case concerning the violation of provisions prescribed by a circular on arms custody, in which it was deemed irrelevant that said circular had not been referenced in the specific order directing the defendant to perform a service in civilian attire carrying standard armament, as it contained supplementary provisions regarding the conduct to be observed in carrying out this type of service).

This passage is crucial: the service member is required to know and respect all provisions that supplement and specify the execution methods of a service, even if not textually referenced in the specific order. The irrelevance of direct reference highlights that custody is composed of rules:

• Mandatory and clear;
• General or particular;
• Permanent or temporary;
• Written or verbal.

In the specific case, the circular on arms custody was an essential supplementary provision, the non-observance of which constituted the offense, regardless of its reference in the order.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

This ruling has a significant impact on the responsibility of military personnel. It is not enough to execute the direct order; it is essential to know and apply all regulations, rules, and circulars that, even if not mentioned in the order, are an integral part of "custody." This applies especially to critical aspects such as security and arms management. Jurisprudence reinforces the idea that a service member's responsibility requires active and conscious participation in knowing and applying the rules.

Ruling no. 24919 of 2025 represents an important reference point. It emphasizes that a service member's diligence and professionalism are also demonstrated through the proactive knowledge and application of supplementary provisions, ensuring compliance with the law, operational efficiency, and security within the Armed Forces.