Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Arts. 11 and 17 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Tribunal stated: The neutrality of the armed forces in political matters (Art. 26.2 of the Constitution) has two aspects. Firstly, it means that the armed forces cannot be an autonomous entity within the state political structure, capable of influencing political decisions of state constitutional organs. This political neutrality is secured in particular through civil control, by subjecting the military to the constitutional organs of the republic. The second aspect of the neutrality of the armed forces is that they must be removed from the sphere of direct influence of political parties.76 Moderately restrictive policies of political neutrality, on the other hand, seek to restrict the mode of participation in public life of members of the armed forces. The objective is to avoid the appearance that the military or individuals identified as servicemen or -women are publicly aligned with a political cause. For example, in Italy, Belgium, and the United Kingdom, restrictions exist on political activities while in uniform.77 Limitations may be imposed (as in the United Kingdom) on serving soldiers holding office in political parties but not on membership per se. There may be duties to seek permission or notify the authorities before engaging in political activities. In Croatia, for example, the right to stand for election, the right to join a political party, and the right to freedom of expression relating to military issues all require prior approval at the ministerial level.78 In Luxembourg, members of the armed forces are permitted to stand for election but if elected must leave the service. Least restrictive policies of political neutrality aim to encourage political participation by limiting restrictions on members of the armed forces provided the exercise of political rights does not interfere with military duty. The Netherlands follows this approach and even permits, under certain circumstances, demonstrations at military installations or the participation of soldiers in uniform in public meetings. The rationale of minimal restrictions may be — as with highly restrictive means — to protect democratic values, albeit by different means. The German “citizen in uniform” approach, for example, aims to inculcate active promotion of democracy in the military by permitting the participation of individual members of the forces. All of these approaches have something to be said for them in terms of guaranteeing democratic practice and balancing this with the individual rights of members of the armed forces. It is submitted that, while no one approach can be prescribed, what is needed is sensitivity to when political activity genuinely calls neutrality into question and to when restrictions on rights are excessive. Restrictions on the rights of service personnel that are contextual in taking account of different layers of political office, differing degrees of political involvement, and the military requirements of different places and occasions are more easily defended. In that sense, less restrictive policies are to be preferred, although the particular history or situation in a country may, exceptionally, justify a more restrictive approach to ensure neutrality. It would also be exceptional that prohibitions based on the type of political view supported by a member of the armed forces could be justified; in the case of a political party advocating the overthrow of democratic institutions, however, such restrictions might be justified. 76  An unofficial translation from the website of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, <http://www.trybunal. gov.pl/eng/index.htm>. 77  Nolte and Krieger, op. cit., note 74, pp. 79-80. 78  ODIHR-DCAF project questionnaire, question 54.b, 2006. 62 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel