Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel Box 8.1: The European Court of Human Rights and conscientious objection In Bayatyan v. Armenia, the Grand Chamber held that the failure to provide for alternative military service in Armenia interfered with the applicant’s rights. The Court recognized that, in some circumstances (where the usual criteria of sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance are satisfied), there is a right to manifest one’s objections to military service, motivated by religious beliefs. The Grand Chamber treated the failure to report for military service as a manifestation of the applicant’s beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness and his conviction for evasion of the draft was, therefore, an interference with the right to manifest his beliefs. As the Court pointed out: “the applicant [. . .] sought to be exempted from military service not for reasons of personal benefit or convenience but on the ground of his genuinely held religious conviction.” The position in Armenia under which “no allowances were made for the exigencies of his conscience and beliefs, could not be considered a measure necessary in a democratic society”. Moreover, the Grand Chamber rejected the government’s objection that making allowances for conscientious objectors would be a form of positive discrimination: “[R]espect on the part of the State towards the beliefs of a minority religious group like the applicant’s by providing them with the opportunity to serve society as dictated by their conscience might […] rather ensure cohesive and stable pluralism and promote religious harmony and tolerance in society.”289 Other Council of Europe institutions have adopted numerous measures recognizing the right of conscientious objection. PACE passed a series of resolutions on the issue between 1967 and 2006.290 In 1987, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers made an important recommendation, in which it endorsed the right of conscientious objectors to be released from military service and supported the provision of alternative service. It invited member states to bring their legislation and practice into line with the right to conscientious objection.291 The recommendation suggests certain minimum basic principles for states in the implementation of this right.292 The Committee of Ministers also urged that a “sustained effort” be made to implement the recommendation.293 In 2006, PACE further affirmed the importance of the right to conscientious objection as “an essential component of the right 289 Ibid., para. 126. 290 In 1967, PACE adopted its first resolutions (Nos. 337 and 478) supporting the right of conscientious objection. This was followed in 1977 with Recommendation No. 816, affirming the right of conscientious objection. Also see PACE Recommendation 1518, “Exercise of the Right of Conscientious Objection to Military Service in Council of Europe Member States”, 23 May 2001. 132 291 Council of Europe, “Recommendation CM/Rec(87)8 of the Committee of Ministers Regarding Conscientious Objection to Compulsory Military Service”, 9 April 1987. 292 Ibid., paras. 2-8. 293 Council of Europe, “Decision on the Reply from the Committee of Ministers Adopted at the 785th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies” (26-27 February 2002), Doc. 9379, 1 March 2002.