(Commission) A complaint was brought by a Jehovah’s witness who objected not only to military service but also to compulsory civilian substitute service.
Held: The complaint was inadmissible. The Commission referred to article 4(3)(b) and continued ‘Since this text expressly recognises that conscientious objectors may be required to perform civilian service in substitution for compulsory military service it must be inferred that according to the Convention conscientious objection does not imply a right to be exempted from substitute civilian service (cf. Commission’s opinion in application No. 2299/66, Grandrath v/FRG – Report dated 12.12.1968 para. 32). It does not prevent a state from imposing sanctions on those who refuse such service (cf. mutatis mutandis, decision on application No. 5591/72, v./Austria, Collection 43, p. 161).’
Citations:
Unreported, 5 July 1977
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court Admn 7-Oct-2004
The defendant claimed that he had gone absent without leave from the RAF as a conscientous objector.
Held: The defendant had not demonstrated by complaint to the RAF that he did object to service in Iraq. In some circumstances where there was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.219438