Armed forces personnel Armed forces personnel are not a homogeneous group, as many sub-categories exist, e.g., conscripted service personnel, volunteer service personnel, members of the different branches of the armed forces (navy, air force, army, military police, and special units), as well as the various ranks from private to general. This handbook takes the view that human rights are inherently a part of being human and that membership of a certain category of military personnel should not affect the enjoyment of human rights. In particular, the concept of citizens in uniform cannot refer solely to conscripted soldiers. While the conscripted soldier is under arms as part of compulsory military service, the professional soldier agrees to join the armed forces on a voluntary basis. The mere fact of joining the armed forces voluntarily does not result in a waiver of human rights, as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in 1999.4 At times, however, special safeguards are necessary to protect certain groups within the armed forces, e.g., soldiers under 18 years of age. On the other hand, superior officers do have such a powerful position within the armed forces that their freedom of expression towards subordinates has to be limited, e.g., to protect subordinates from unwanted religious attention (e.g., proselytism) on the part of superiors.5 Peacetime situations: ensuring rights in the barracks This handbook deals with peacetime situations only. Hence, armed forces deployed abroad, such as for peacekeeping operations, or at home during crisis or emergency situations do not fall within its scope. Methodology Studying the human rights of armed forces personnel in different countries presents some significant challenges. First, it is not a topic that has been extensively researched, with very few publications according much attention to the human rights of armed forces personnel in the barracks. In spite of some excellent studies on specific legal systems and particular aspects of this issue, there is a clear lack of comprehensive studies of comparative data and analysis of national practice.6 Another challenge is the gap between legal provisions and reality. Norms and standards enshrined in a country’s constitution and laws are not always respected in reality. For these reasons, the authors of the handbook adopted a research strategy that involved the following steps. 1. ODIHR-DCAF questionnaire A questionnaire was devised to consider the issue of the human rights of armed forces personnel, given the lack of comparative data on the subject, in particular concerning policies and practices.7 Box 2.1 provides more details about the questionnaire, which resulted in a wealth of data on laws, procedures, and practices in participating States. These are referred to in the text and in the numerous illustrative boxes throughout the handbook. 4  Peter Rowe, The Impact of Human Rights Law on Armed Forces (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 9-23; Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, 27 September 1999, European Human Rights Reports, Vol. 29, 2000, p. 548. 5  Larissis and others v. Greece, European Court of Human Rights, 24 February 1998, European Human Rights Reports, Vol. 27, 1999, p. 329; Ian Leigh, “Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel: The European Court of Human Rights”, DCAF Working Paper No. 165, 2005, p. 4. 6  See, for example, Rowe, op. cit., note 4; Georg Nolte (ed.), European Military Law Systems (Berlin: De Gruyter Recht, 2003); M. Sassoli and A. McChesney, Conscripts’ rights and military justice training manual (Chisinau: Centre for Recruits’ and Servicemen’s Rights Protection of the Republic of Moldova, 2002); Ghébali and Lambert, op. cit., note 2. 7  19 The ODIHR-DCAF questionnaire can be accessed online at <http://www.dcaf.ch/odihr/_index.cfm>. Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel