cannot be compared with any other profession in society. According to the occupation model, however, soldiers will generally have the same rights as other citizens because of the commonalities between the military profession and other professions in society. It is imperative, however, that such restrictions satisfy several criteria. They must be rationally related to military needs and not merely the result of arbitrary practice or tradition. They should be firmly based upon law, preferably legislation that has been subject to considered democratic debate and lawful procedure. They should be proportionate, i.e., adapted in a nuanced way, to the interests of the military, which would be compromised by the full exercise of human rights. Any restrictions on the rights of armed forces personnel that operate in a discriminatory fashion on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or sexual orientation must be carefully scrutinized given their suspect nature and the requirement for clear justification. The onus to show that it is necessary to restrict the rights of armed forces personnel should firmly lie with the military itself. Human rights are not merely a matter of high-sounding aspirations on paper: they must also be fully implemented in daily practice in the armed forces. Human rights violations resulting from illegal practices (e.g., mistreatment of conscripts) are some of the most common violations occurring in the armed forces. Although laws and regulations prohibiting such practices often exist, it is their practical implementation that proves most difficult. In many OSCE participating States, the mechanisms for protecting the rights of armed forces personnel remain inadequate. Even in states where laws and regulations have been improved, they are often not respected at the practical level. The question of effective implementation of human rights is therefore crucial. This handbook emphasizes not just the role of national and international courts, but also other methods of investigating complaints concerning violations of human rights and sanctioning violations, including military ombudsmen and international monitoring bodies. The first line of defence, however, has to come from within the armed forces themselves. In particular, protection of the human rights of their subordinates features among the key responsibilities of superior officers. Human rights education is crucial in raising awareness and creating a professional culture within the military that includes respect for human rights as part of a commitment to democratic values. When this is achieved, the armed forces are not just defenders of a state’s territorial integrity, they also defend and embody its democratic commitments. 24 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel