Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel Clearly, the case for preventing disclosure may be stronger for some military matters. Nonetheless, the Court later found that even the disclosure by a member of the Romanian Intelligence Service during a press conference about the illegal interception of communications, after having tried to raise the matter with his superiors and a member of parliament, was justified in the circumstances.197 The Court conducted a close analysis of the available avenues for raising allegations of irregularities and concluded that none of them was likely to be effective. Moreover, the general interest of the public in the disclosure of information revealing illegal activities within the Romanian Intelligence Service was so important in a democratic society that it prevailed over the interest in maintaining public confidence in that institution. Comparable arguments could obviously apply to disclosures of potential illegality and wrongdoing in the armed forces. In this context, it should be noted that, in a 2010 resolution, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) stressed that legislation on whistle-blowers should be comprehensive and should cover the private and the public sectors, including members of the armed forces and special services.198 A 2014 recommendation by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers noted, however, that in national normative, institutional and judicial networks established to protect the rights and interests of whistle-blowers, special schemes or rules, including modified rights and obligations, may apply to information related to national security or defence.199 Good practice requires that service personnel be provided with effective avenues for reporting illegal behaviour and human rights abuses to appropriate organs with the capacity to investigate and remedy such abuses. In the absence of such laws and procedures, it is likely, based on the above principles, that even disclosures to the media may be protected under the ECHR, provided that they are sufficiently important and made in good faith. The balancing of public interests (and the disclosure mechanisms) may take account of the special circumstances surrounding defence and military matters. It is particularly vital that armed forces provide avenues for whistleblowing, despite its seeming incongruousness with the chain of command, as abuse and injustice will erode the moral fabric and morale of a unit – and even the institution of the armed forces – until it is exposed and remedied. Different Approaches The OSCE participating States that responded to the ODIHR questionnaire all reported that they impose some restrictions on the freedom of expression of armed forces personnel. These restrictions take various forms. 98 197 European Court of Human Rights, Bucur and Toma v. Romania (Application no. 40238/02, judgment of 8 January 2013). 198 PACE, “Resolution 1729 (2010) on the Protection of Whistleblowers”, 29 April 2010, para. 6.2. 199 Council of Europe, “Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 of the Committee of Ministers on the Protection of Whistleblowers”, 30 April 2014.