Communication No. 492/1992 Submitted by: Lauri Peltonen on 23 December 1991 (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: Finland Declared admissible: 16 October 1992 (forty-sixth session) Date of adoption of Views: 21 July 1994 (fifty-first session)* of its third periodic report under article 40 of the Covenant in October 1990 that: Subject matter: Denial of a passport for failure to report to the military service "... there might have been some misunderstanding concerning the question of obligation of military service. A passport could be issued to a person under duty of performing his military service and conscription, but its validity must temporarily expire during the period of military service. There is no de facto possibility for a conscript to leave the country during his military service and accordingly there will be no derogation from article 12 by withholding a valid passport during 1 that period, which is only ... 8 to 11 months." Procedural issues: Travaux préparatoires Substantive issues: Right to leave any country Article of the Covenant: 12 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2, 3, 5 (2) (a) (b) 1. The author of the communication is Lauri Peltonen, a Finnish citizen born in 1968, residing in Stockholm, Sweden, since 1986. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Finland of article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. 2.4 The author contends that the interpretation by the Supreme Court of the words "may be denied" in section 9, subsection 1 (6), means that Finnish Embassies around the world have full discretion to deny passports to Finnish citizens until they reach the age of 30. The duration of the denial of a passport is likely to exceed by far the period of "8 to 11 months", as it did in this case. The author acknowledges that failure to report for military service is an offence under the Finnish Military Service Act. He observes, however, that the authorities could have instituted criminal or disciplinary proceedings against him; failure to do so is said to further underline that the denial of a passport was and continues to be used as a de facto punishment. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 In June 1990, the author applied for a passport at the Finnish Embassy in Stockholm. The Embassy refused to issue a passport, on the ground that Mr. Peltonen had failed to report for his military service in Finland on a specified date. Under section 9, subsection 1 (6), of the Passport Act of 1986, delivery of a passport "may be denied" to persons aged 17 to 30 if they are unable to demonstrate that the performance of military service is not an obstacle to the issuance of a passport. The complaint 2.2 The author appealed against the Embassy's decision to the Uusimaa Provincial Administrative Court, invoking his right to leave any country. By decision of 22 January 1991, the Court upheld the Embassy's decision. The author then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which confirmed the previous decisions on 19 September 1991. With this, it is submitted, available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 3. It is submitted that the denial of a passport pursuant to section 9, subsection 1 (6), of the Passport Act is (a) a disproportionate punishment in relation to the offence of failure to report for military service, (b) a violation of the author's right, under article 12 of the Covenant, to leave any country, and (c) a punishment not prescribed by law. The State party's information and observations 2.3 The author notes that the administrative and judicial instances seized of his case did not justify the denial of a passport. In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court merely observed that the Embassy had the right, under Section 9, subsection 1 (6), not to issue a passport to the author because he was a conscript and had failed to prove that military service was no obstacle for obtaining a passport. In this context, it is noted that the Government of Finland stated during the examination 4. The State party concedes that domestic remedies have been exhausted, and that the claim is admissible ratione materiae and sufficiently substantiated. Accordingly, the State party raises no objections to the admissibility of the communication. 1 141 CCPR/C/SR.1016, para. 21.