order, and constituted an interference by the public authorities with the author's right to leave the country under the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, which was, however, justified. It concludes that the denial of a passport in the case was also proportional in relation to the author's right to leave any country, and that the restriction is consistent with the other rights recognized by the Covenant. arguing before the courts that he is not under an obligation to carry out the military duties imposed by the State, referred to one of the basic purposes of the provision of section 9 (1) (6) of the Passport Act, namely, to make sure that those who have not fulfilled their civic obligation of military or alternative service will do so and not avoid it by any other means. The State party further notes that the author did not show that his liability for military service did not constitute a bar to the issuing of a passport, and that there were no changes in his situation that would have warranted another conclusion. Furthermore, no mention was made in his request of any of the grounds referred to in section 10. In this context, the State party emphasizes that the author does not require a passport, for example, for professional reasons, and that he merely needed one for holiday travel. 7.1 Counsel, in his comments, challenges the State party's contention that when applying the Passport Act, the authorities follow precise legal rules that circumscribe their discretion. In this context, he notes that, during consideration of the third periodic report of Finland by the Committee, several Committee members expressed concern about the restrictions on the issuance of passports under the Passport Act and Decree.3 Moreover, after the examination of the report, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs recommended to the Ministry of the Interior that the Passport Act be amended. Counsel further notes that the circular mentioned in the State party's submission (para. 6.3) is dated 22 June 1992, that is, after Mr. Peltonen's case was decided by the administrative and judicial authorities and after he had submitted the case to the Committee. 6.6 The State party dismisses as groundless the claim that the denial of a passport is used as a de facto punishment for the author's failure to report for military service. It submits that the denial of the passport is based on considerations which are specified in the Constitution Act, Passport Act and Passport Decree, and which are related to the Military Service Act. The denial of a passport neither constitutes a punishment nor in any other way replaces the investigation of, and the corresponding punishment for, the offence of failing to report for military service. If the author returns to Finland and is arrested, his failure to attend the call-ups will be investigated and sanctioned. However, the offence cannot serve as a basis for an extradition request. 7.2 Counsel submits that article 12 of the Covenant does not make any distinction between travel for professional reasons and travel for holiday purposes; he argues that the right to freedom of movement does not allow States parties to draw such artificial distinctions. 7.3 The author does not challenge the State party's position that a State must have some means at its disposal to secure that conscripts actually perform their military service; he submits that what is at issue in the case is not whether the State party is allowed to take "some measures", but whether the measures taken in the case are acceptable in light of the provisions of the Covenant. If the State party wishes to take "some measures" to secure the performance of military service, it must take legislative action, for example, by amending the Criminal Code. It is submitted that if the State does not take such measures, it cannot use the Passport Act as a legal basis for a de facto punishment lasting for more than 10 years. 6.7 The State party notes that, pursuant to article 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the right to leave any country may be subject to restrictions which are provided for by law, are necessary to protect national security and public order (ordre public), and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the Covenant. For the State party, it is clear from the above that the Passport Act, which was passed by Parliament, is based on the Constitution Act and is linked to the Military Service Act, fulfils the requirement of "provided by law". The State party further submits that the competent authorities and tribunals have affirmed that the provisions of the Passport Act are an adequate legal basis in the author's case, and that their assessment of the case is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Examination of the merits 6.8 As regards the legitimate aim of the restriction, the State party asserts that the denial of a passport falls under the notion of "public order (ordre public)", within the meaning of article 12, paragraph 3; the denial of a passport to a conscript has additional, even if indirect, links to the notion of "national security". It argues that the authorities' decision to reject the author's application for a passport was necessary for the protection of public 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 3 CCPR/C/SR.1016, see in particular paragraphs 19 and 35-40. 143