against professional criteria regardless of sexual orientation. In these countries, abuse and harassment are completely prohibited, not just violations related to an individual’s sexual orientation. Military regulations therefore provide for the same standards for military personnel regardless of sexual orientation. The armed forces of the United Kingdom provide an example of this approach. In 2000, the United Kingdom lifted its ban on gays and lesbians in the military following two rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.289 All four applicants were members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom and had been subject to investigations by the military police into their sexual orientation. The applicants were administratively discharged between July 1993 and January 1995, in accordance with the Ministry of Defence policy at that time, after having “revealed” their homosexuality. Until the Court ruling, about 60 homosexual servicemen had been forced to leave the service every year.290 The applicants argued before the Court that the investigations concerning their sexual orientation and their subsequent discharges constituted a violation of their right to private life, as guaranteed by Art. 8 of the ECHR (see Box 14.4). 291 Box 14.4 Right to Privacy and Sexual Orientation: The Smith and Grady v. United Kingdom Case at the ECHR291 “… the Court finds that the perceived problems [of homosexual relations] which were identified in the Homosexual Policy Assessment Team (HPAT) report as a threat to the fighting power and operational effectiveness of the armed forces were founded solely upon the negative attitudes of heterosexual personnel towards those of homosexual orientation. “To the extent that they represent a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority, these negative attitudes cannot, of themselves, be considered by the Court to amount to sufficient justification for the interferences with the applicants’ rights outlined above any more than similar negative attitudes towards those of a different race, origin or colour. “Accordingly, the Court concludes that convincing and weighty reasons have not been offered by the Government to justify the policy against homosexuals in the armed forces or, therefore, the consequent discharge of the applicants from those forces. “In sum, the Court finds that neither the investigations conducted into the applicants’ sexual orientation, nor their discharge on the grounds of their homosexuality in pursuance of the Ministry of Defence policy, were justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. … Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.” The Court also noted that a strict code of conduct for all members of the armed forces could be a rather effective anti-sexual-harassment policy. As a result of these rulings, the Ministry of Defence announced a new policy on sexual conduct in the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct. The policy is founded on the need to maintain combat effectiveness, based on the principles of group cohesion and discipline, 289  Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, 27 September 1999, European Human Rights Reports, Vol. 29, 1999, p. 493, and Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom, op. cit., note 4, p. 548. 290  “Gays win military legal battle”, BBC News website, 27 September 1999, available at <http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/uk/458714.stm>. 291  Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, op. cit., note 289, p. 493 et seq., paras. 96, 97, 105, 110,111,112. 135 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel