European Court Upholds the Right to Conscientious Objection
Events Leading Up to the European Court Case
Vahan was born in Armenia in April 1983. In 1996,
he and other members of his family began to study the Bible with
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and when he was 16 years old, he was baptized. From
his study of the Bible, Vahan developed a deep regard for the teachings
of Jesus Christ, including the direction Jesus gave his followers not
to take up physical weapons of warfare. (Matthew 26:52) Therefore, only a short time after his baptism, Vahan faced a critical decision in his life.
Armenian law makes military service compulsory for
all young men when they turn 18 years of age. If they refuse to perform
this service, they can be punished with imprisonment for up to three
years. Vahan wanted to serve his fellow citizens. At the same time, he
did not want to violate his Bible-trained conscience. So, what did he
do?
As soon as he was deemed eligible for military
service in 2001, Vahan began writing letters to the authorities in
Armenia. In his letters, he stated that such service would violate his
conscience and religious beliefs. At the same time, he declared his
willingness to perform alternative civilian service instead.
More than one year passed, during which Vahan continued to appeal to authorities to recognize his conscientious refusal of
military service. However, in September 2002, Vahan was arrested, and
later he was charged with draft evasion. He was sentenced to 18 months’
imprisonment. The prosecutor, though, was not satisfied with that
punishment. Just one month after the sentencing, the prosecutor filed a
motion with the appeal court, demanding a harsher sentence. He argued
that Vahan’s religiously motivated conscientious objection to military
service was “unfounded and dangerous.” The appeal court granted the
prosecutor’s petition, increasing Vahan’s sentence to 30 months’
imprisonment.
Vahan appealed this decision to Armenia’s highest
court. In January 2003, the Court of Cassation upheld the appeal court’s
judgment. Vahan was immediately transferred to a prison facility to
begin serving his sentence along with murderers, drug dealers, and
rapists.
Events in the European Court
Since 2001, Armenia has been a member of the
Council of Europe. Its citizens therefore have a right to appeal cases
to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) once they have exhausted
all domestic remedies for justice. That is what Vahan chose to do. In
his appeal he argued that his conviction for refusal to serve in the
army had violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
He asked that his right to conscientious objection of military service
be protected under this article
On October 27, 2009, the ECHR issued its
judgment. The court held that, in view of existing case law, freedom of
conscience as defined in Article 9 of the European Convention does not
protect the rights of conscientious objectors who refuse to serve in the
military.
By that time, Vahan had long been released from
prison, was married, and had a little boy. Vahan was disappointed by the
judgment. He then had to make the choice either to drop the case or
appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. He chose the latter. The Grand
Chamber accepts only exceptional cases, so Vahan was pleased when it
decided to review his case.
Finally, on July 7, 2011, in Strasbourg, France,
the Grand Chamber of the ECHR issued its ruling. The court concluded by
an overwhelming majority of 16 votes to 1 that Armenia violated the
right of freedom of conscience of Vahan Bayatyan when it convicted and
imprisoned him for his conscientious objection to military service. The judge from Armenia provided the sole dissenting vote.
Why is that ruling significant? Because it was
the first time in the history of the ECHR that the right to
conscientious objection to military service was viewed as being fully
protected under Article 9 of the Convention. As a result, the court
views it as a violation of fundamental rights in a democratic society to
imprison a conscientious objector.
The Court made the following remark about the
position of Jehovah’s Witnesses as conscientious objectors: “The Court
therefore has no reason to doubt that the applicant’s objection to
military service was motivated by his religious beliefs, which were
genuinely held and were in serious and insurmountable conflict with his
obligation to perform military service.”
Reaction to the Decision
Over the past two decades, over 450
conscientious objectors who are Jehovah’s Witnesses have been sentenced
in Armenia. At the time this article was being prepared, there were 58
young men in that country who were imprisoned for their conscientious
refusal of military service on religious grounds. Five of those
individuals were imprisoned after the landmark decision in the case of Bayatyan v. Armenia. *
In one of those cases, when the young conscientious objector filed a
motion requesting that the local prosecutor terminate the criminal
proceedings against him for refusing military service on the basis of
conscience, the prosecutor rejected his motion. In his written response,
the prosecutor stated: “The judgment by the European Court in the case Bayatyan v. Armenia, dated July 7, 2011, does not apply in this case, since it is obvious that there are no similar circumstances in the two cases.”
Why did the prosecutor feel that way? When Vahan
Bayatyan was charged, there was no alternative civilian service
provision in place. The government of Armenia asserts that since then, a
law has been adopted making such a provision, so those opposed to
military service now have the option of performing civilian service.
However, the alternative service law is under military control, so it
does not apply to many of the conscientious objectors who are presently
being called up for military duty.
Vahan Bayatyan is pleased with the milestone
decision that was made in his favor. The judgment now places an
obligation on Armenia to stop prosecuting and imprisoning individuals
whose deeply held religious convictions do not allow them to engage in
military service.
It is not the purpose of Jehovah’s Witnesses to
introduce reform into the legal system of any country. However, just as
young Vahan Bayatyan did, they seek to establish their legal rights
based on some of the existing laws governing the countries in which they
live. Why? In order that they may continue to live peaceably and freely
obey all the commands of their Leader, Jesus Christ.
