It states in Article 8, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution that physical freedom shall be guaranteed to the people and that no person shall be tried or punished otherwise than by a court of law in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It also provides in Article 16 of the Constitution that the people shall have the right of instituting legal proceedings. Active-duty soldiers are also "the people" and thus deserve the abovementioned protection. In addition, it stipulates in Article 9 of the Constitution: "except for those who are in active military service, no person shall be subject to trial by a military tribunal." Given that active-duty soldiers have the special obligation of protecting the country, a military tribunal is established for the crimes committed by said soldiers for the purpose of national security and military need. It shall not be interpreted such that military tribunals have the exclusive jurisdiction upon the crimes committed by active-duty soldiers. There is no stipulation in the Constitution concerning military trial; nevertheless, such system may be established under the law. The initiation and operation of the military trial, which is within the power of punishment of the nation, shall meet the minimum requirement of the due process of law, which requirement includes an independent and just tribunal and procedure and the compliance with constitutional principles as stated in Articles 77 and 80 of the Constitution. The laws governing the procedure of a military trial which limit the rights of active-duty soldiers shall be in compliance with the principle of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip) as stated in Article 23 of the Constitution. In light of the spirit of protecting physical freedom and the right of instituting legal proceedings and the provision of Article 77, the defendant receiving the sentence of imprisonment in a final and conclusive judgment made by the military tribunal in peacetime shall be permitted to appeal directly to a normal court on the ground that the judgment received is in violation of the law. Articles 11, 133, Paragraphs 1 and 3, and 158 of the Military Justice Act and the rest of the Act which state that the defendant is not permitted to appeal to the normal court on the ground that the judgment received from the military tribunal is in violation of the law are unconstitutional and shall be invalidated two years after the announcement of this Interpretation, at the latest. The relevant authority shall, within the two-year period, revise relevant laws based on this principle, adjust the relevant appeal system, improve the separation of prosecution and trial in the military trial system and improve the criteria to appoint army officers to participate in military tribunals and the status protection of military judges to meet the principle of independent trial.