this study was an attempt to probe, analyze and explain the procedural criminal safeguards given to those standing trial before Omani military courts. Aspiring to be a valuable addition to the ultimate goal of an integrated military jurisdiction system in Oman, the study started by setting out the rights and liberties guaranteed by the State's Basic Law promulgated by the Royal Decree No: 1.1/97. The rationale behind selecting these assurances to be the starting point of this research is that they are construed to be a bedrock of any judiciary, including military, being a source of protection stemming from the principle of procedural criminal legitimacy which is one of two sides of criminal legitimacy which is in turn supplemented by the criminal thematic legitimacy: 'no crime or punishment without a text'. The focus of the dissertation was the Omani military judiciary and the procedural criminal protection it provides for the accused. This was culminated by a comparison with the mainstream procedural criminal legislature in force in the Sultanate of Oman. The latter is the umbrella legislature where most of the provisions dealing with the protection of the accused are found coupled with the explanatory legal articles needed for affording such assurances. To further enrich the discussion, pertinent rules and regulations applied in some other countries have also been cross-referenced whenever deemed necessary. The objective has all the way through been to try to ascertain whether or not the legal regulations governing the procedural criminal aspects in the Omani military judiciary conform with the standards of procedural assurances, and how to fill any procedural gaps should there be any. In order to carry out this task, this study examined the current structure of the main two branches of the military judiciary in Oman; namely those of the Royal Oman Police (ROP) and Sultan's Armed Forces (SAF). Also studied were the principles of military judiciary both in general and with special reference to the case of the Sultanate of Oman. Discussion then progressed to cover the legal safeguards granted by the Omani military judiciary to the accused from investigation to trial. These included safeguards related to defence and trial procedures. The methodology applied was one where all the stages which the accused goes through are scrutinized one after another while eliciting the safeguards present in each of these stages. Where applicable, the researcher's views were given at the end of each procedure in the form of an assessment based on the researcher's personal discretion. The study concluded with a number of recommendations, of which the main ones were: urging the concerned government bodies to expedite the formation of a fully fledged military judicial system under which function all the judiciaries of the security and military services. The proposed system should fork into a criminal judiciary, administrative judiciary and military prosecution. The various degrees of judicial procedures and the sufficient number of judicial departments should be catered for. As far as supervision is concerned, the military judicial system should be subordinate to the National Security Council which is headed by His Majesty and which is the most suitable to play a supervisory role and facilitate the former's work. All organizational and administrative prerequisites should be provided to enable the military judicial system to perform its duties in the best qualitative manner possible starting from where the ordinary judiciary has finished.