Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel duty to “ensure that judicial and/or administrative procedures, including, where they deem it appropriate, conciliation procedures, for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive are available to all persons who consider themselves wronged” (Article 7). Arguably, this requires European Union states to allow members of armed forces access to civilian legal remedies to enforce anti-discrimination provisions, and not only to internal processes. Article 14 of the ECHR does not establish a free-standing right not to be discriminated against, and only applies to the enjoyment of other rights stipulated in the Convention. At the same time, there is no need to demonstrate the infringement of a right, as a practical link will suffice. Importantly, there is no Convention right to employment or participation in public service. Even where such a link or breach is established, and Article 14 is engaged, it is possible to justify differential treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has stated, for example, that “a difference of treatment is discriminatory if it ‘has no objective and reasonable justification’, that is, if it does not pursue a ‘legitimate aim’ or if there is not a ‘reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised’”.377 However, differential treatment on the grounds of race and nationality are two categories that the European Court of Human Rights has said require “very weighty reasons” or “particularly serious reasons” to be justified.378 Unlike Article 14, Protocol 12 to the ECHR is a free-standing provision to protect individuals from discrimination: • in enjoying any right within national law; • by public authorities carrying out their legal obligations, including when using discretionary powers such as grant-making; and • in any other act, or failure to act, by a public authority. Thus, Protocol 12 prevents discrimination within armed forces on the prohibited grounds in the countries where it applies.379 In addition, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers provided concrete guidance regarding armed forces personnel in its 2010 Recommendation on human rights of armed forces members.380 377 European Court of Human Rights, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, European Human Rights Reports, Vol. 7, 1985, p. 741, para. 72. See also: “Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium” (Belgian Linguistics Case), European Court of Human Rights, 23 July 1968, European Human Rights Reports, 1979-80, Vol. 1, p. 241. 378 European Court of Human Rights, Tekeli v. Turkey, 16 November 2004, European Human Rights Reports, Vol. 42, 2006, p. 53, referring to “compelling reasons”. It was only in 2007 that the European Court of Human Rights explicitly included the notion of indirect (race) discrimination under Article 14, in DH and others v. the Czech Republic, its judgment on Roma education segregation. 379 Protocol 12 has been signed by 35 Council of Europe states, of which 20 have ratified the Protocol. It entered into force on 25 June 2018. ECRI works with governments to try to remove the obstacles to ratifying Protocol 12. 380 See, in particular, Article 77: “In the context of the work and service life of members of the armed forces, as well as with respect to access to the armed forces, there should be no discrimination in relation to their human rights and freedoms based on any grounds such as sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, 166