Κατηγορίες
εξωτερικό νομοθεσία τεκμηρίωση

2002 σύσταση 1518 επιτροπή υπουργών

785th meeting – 26 and 27 February 2002

Item 4.6

Exercise of the right to conscientious objection to military service in Council of Europe member states
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1518 (2001)

Decision
The Deputies adopted the following reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1518 (2001) on the exercise of the right to conscientious objection to military service in Council of Europe member states:
“The Committee of Ministers has examined Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1518 (2001) on the exercise of the right to conscientious objection to military service in Council of Europe member states, as well as the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights upon which it is based.
The Committee welcomes the fact that the Recommendation underlines a number of the ideas expressed in its Recommendation No. R (87) 8 regarding conscientious objection to compulsory military service. It also underlines that the level of implementation of the latter Recommendation varies considerably from one country to another.
The Parliamentary Assembly thus recommends that the Committee of Ministers invite those member states which have not yet done so to introduce into their legislation: the right to be registered as conscientious objector at any time (point 5 i), a right for permanent members of the armed forces to apply for the granting of conscientious objector status (point 5 ii), the right for all conscripts to receive information on conscientious objector status and the means of obtaining it (point 5 iii) and a genuine alternative service of a clearly civilian nature, which is neither deterrent nor punitive in character (point 5 iv).
While most of these issues are already taken up in the 1987 Recommendation, the Parliamentary Assembly goes further in particular on points 5 ii and iv. Whereas the Committee of Ministers has hesitations concerning the first of these points in view of the fact that permanent members of the armed forces have enrolled on a voluntary basis, which clearly puts them in another category than conscripts, it can, in principle, agree with the second point. Nevertheless, it would like to underline that, in certain cases, the less onerous duties of civilian service may justify a longer duration than that of military service. It considers that member states must enjoy a certain discretion in deciding on the length and organisation of the alternative service. It also stresses that access to such service should be non-discriminatory and non-punitive.
The Committee wishes to recall that in 1997 (613th meeting, 18-19 December 1997), the Ministers’ Deputies approved the terms of reference for the Group of Specialists on conscientious objection to military service (DH-S-CO), set up by the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH). Under the authority of the latter, the Group was to consider ways and means of helping member states effectively to implement, in their domestic legislation and practice, the principles and rules set forth in the above-mentioned Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers.
The work carried out within the CDDH resulted, inter alia, in the drafting of an in-depth comparative study of the legal measures deployed in member states as regards conscientious objection to military service, in a brochure and a leaflet on conscientious objection to military service designed to make national authorities, the bodies concerned and the general public aware of the different questions raised by conscientious objection to military service and the appropriate solutions for guaranteeing alternative service respecting the dignity of the conscientious objector. Proposals were also considered for other means of building awareness around and implementing the Recommendation, inter alia, through technical expertise to member states in the drawing up of national legal measures complying with its principles.
The Committee shares the view of the CDDH that there is no need at this stage to update Recommendation No. R (87) 8, but that emphasis should be placed on its effective implementation.
Likewise, the Committee of Ministers considers that rather than elaborating an additional protocol amending Articles 4, paragraph 3b, and 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as suggested in the Assembly’s Recommendation, presently, it is preferable to make a sustained effort to implement the 1987 Recommendation. The aforementioned results of the work of the CDDH will certainly be of assistance to member states in this effort.”