CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 12 septembre 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS            Applications Nos. 23372/94, 26377/94 and 26378/94       Dimitrios Larissis, Savvas Mandalaridis and Ioannis Sarandis                                 against                                 Greece                        REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                   (adopted on 12 September 1996)                            TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 15-19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 20-42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 20-41). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    Relevant domestic law           (para. 42). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11     III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 43-105). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 43). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13        B.    Points at issue           (para. 44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13        C.    As regards Article 9 of the Convention           (paras. 45-82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13        1.    Whether the interference was "prescribed by law"           (paras. 47-50). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14        2.    Whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim           (paras. 51-54). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14        3.    Whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic           society"           (paras. 55-82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15        i.    The conviction of the second applicant for the           proselytism of the Bairamis family and their neighbours and           the conviction of the second and third applicants for the           proselytism of A. Zounara           (paras. 72-74). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18             CONCLUSION           (paras. 75-76). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19        ii.   The conviction of the first and second applicants forthe                proselytism of airman G. Antoniadis, the conviction of                the first and third applicants for the proselytism of                airmen A. Kokkalis and N. Kafkas           (paras. 77-80). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19             CONCLUSION           (paras. 81-82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20        D.    As regards Article 7 of the Convention           (paras. 83-86). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20             CONCLUSION           (para. 87). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21        E.    As regards Article 10 of the Convention           (paras. 88-90). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21             CONCLUSION           (para. 91). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21        F.    As regards Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction           with Article 9 of the Convention           (paras. 92-95). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21             CONCLUSION           (paras. 96-97). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22        G.    Recapitulation           (paras. 98-105) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22     PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24     PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. H.G. SCHERMERS, C.L. ROZAKIS, M.A. NOWICKI, B. CONFORTI AND N. BRATZA . . . 25     PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. F. MARTINEZ JOINED BY Mrs. G.H. THUNE AND MM. E. BUSUTTIL, J.-C. GEUS AND A. PERENIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27     APPENDIX I:     DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 28   APPENDIX II:    EXTRACTS FROM THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT                OF THE COURT JUDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 41   I.INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicants are Greek citizens, born in 1949, 1948 and 1951 respectively and resident in Tanagra Viotias, Agria Volou and Kamatero Attikis respectively. They were represented before the Commission by Prof. Dr. J.W. Montgomery, a barrister practising in London, Mr. G. Patsaouras, a lawyer practising in Athens, and Mr. P. Diamond, a barrister practising in London.   3.    The application is directed against Greece. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. L. Papidas, President of the Legal Advisory Council of the State (Nomiko Simvulio tu Kratus), Dr. P. Kamarineas, Member (Simvulos) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State, Mr. M. Apessos, Senior Adviser (Paredros) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State, and Mrs. K. Grigoriu, Legal Assistant (Dikastikos Antiprosopos) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State.   4.    The case concerns the applicants' conviction for proselytism. The applicants invoke Articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   5.    Application No. 23372/94 was introduced on 28 January 1994 and registered on 2 February 1994.   6.    On 13 January 1995 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 22 May 1995 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The applicant replied on 19 July 1995.   8.    Applications Nos. 26377/95 and 26378/95 were introduced on 28 January 1994 and registered on 1 February 1995.   9.    On   3 April 1995 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the two applications to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on their admissibility and merits.   10.   The Government's observations were submitted on 7 June 1995. The two applicants replied on 19 July 1995.   11.   On 7 July 1995 the Commission granted the three applicants legal aid for the presentation of their cases.   12.   On 27 November 1995 the Commission ordered the joinder of the three applications. It also declared the applications admissible.   13.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 6 December 1995 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.   The applicants submitted additional observations on 23 January 1996. The respondent Government did not.   14.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   15.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                G.B. REFFI                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN                K. HERNDL                E. BIELIUNAS   16.   The text of this Report was adopted on 12 September 1996 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   17.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   18.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the applications is annexed hereto.   19.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   20.   On 18 May 1992 the applicants, who are followers of the Pentecostal Church, appeared before the Permanent Air-Force Court (Diarkes Stratodikio Aeroporias) of Athens, composed of one officer with legal training and four other officers. They were tried for proselytism, under Article 4 of Law 1363/38, as amended by Law 1672/39, allegedly committed against other members of the air-force and a number of civilians, all of them followers of the Greek Orthodox Church.   21.   The court heard a number of witnesses, among whom A. Kafkas and I. Stamoulis. A. Kafkas testified that when his son, N. Kafkas, joined the air-force he was Christian Orthodox. When he completed his military service he was Pentecostal. N. Kafkas had served in Unit X under the orders of the third applicant. A short while after N. Kafkas joined Unit X, his behaviour changed. He stopped seeing his friends and used to spend long periods of time in his room studying the Bible. When asked by the witness, N. Kafkas said that he had met two officers who were real Christians and used to study the Bible, as opposed to the witness who was not a real Christian. The witness subsequently found out that it had been the first applicant who had persuaded N. Kafkas to stop wearing a cross. N. Kafkas brought back home from the barracks his television and radio sets, because it was forbidden by the two officers' religion to watch television and listen to the radio. N. Kafkas also brought back home the books from which he used to study to prepare for a set of examinations necessary for admission to university. Instead he would read religious books and listen to taped sermons, which the first and third applicants had given to him. Every evening and every Sunday morning N. Kafkas used to leave his house in order to meet the persons who had changed his religion. When his parents followed him to the Pentecostal church, he left his home and went to Athens. Twenty days later N. Kafkas returned home and to the Orthodox Church. When asked by the witness, N. Kafkas said that the first and third applicants had converted him to the Pentecostal Church. They had taken advantage of their rank to exert pressure on him using their special skills of persuasion. They would tell N. Kafkas that he would be given leave of absence if he promised to visit their church. When the witness left on a trip, N. Kafkas was reconverted to the Pentecostal Church. The witness concluded that his son, N. Kafkas, had no will of his own and always did as he was told by other members of the Pentecostal Church.   22.   I. Stamoulis, a retired air-force officer, testified that the first and third applicants served under his orders when he was the commander of Unit X. The second applicant did not. When asked by the witness, both applicants accepted that they were followers of the Pentecostal Church but claimed that they did not engage in proselytism. However, various persons denounced to the witness the proselytising activities of the first and third applicants. Th. Tsikas told him that the two applicants used to choose airmen because they were more vulnerable as a result of their age and that the two applicants took advantage of their rank. A. Kafkas had called the witness on the phone and had told him that the two applicants had converted his son, N. Kafkas, while he was doing his military service. The witness was convinced that N. Kafkas had been proselytised by the first and third applicants because he used to work in the office where the two applicants served as duty officers. The witness considered that the first and third applicants were excellent officers. He did not know what means they had used to proselytise. Neither did the previous commander of the unit, whom the witness had asked.   23.   The court also read the statement taken by the investigation judge from N. Kafkas who had been summoned to appear as a prosecution witness. According to the testimony of A. Kafkas, N. Kafkas could not attend the hearing before the first instance court because his wife was undergoing surgery on that day.   24.   In a decision delivered on the day of the hearing the first instance court rejected an exception raised by the defence as to the unconstitutionality of the law on proselytism. The court found that no issues could arise under the principle nullum crimen sine lege certa as a result of the non-exhaustive enumeration in the criminal statute of the means by which the intrusion on someone else's religious beliefs may be brought about. The court further found the applicants guilty of proselytism. More in particular, the court held in respect of the first applicant the following:        "The accused, while he was a military officer, ..., serving      in Unit X, committed the offence of proselytism in the      military camp of this unit between November 1986 and      December 1987 by engaging in several acts which, however,      gave rise to a single, albeit continuing, breach of the      relevant criminal provision; acting with the aim of      intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman      G. Antoniadis, an Orthodox Christian who served in the same      unit, and abusing the trust which G. Antoniadis, as a      hierarchically subordinate, had in him, the accused tried      on approximately twenty occasions to persuade G. Antoniadis      to become a member of the sect of the Pentecostal Church by      engaging in discussions on theology with him in the course      of which the accused contested the correctness of the      teachings of the University department of theology      concerning God and the Orthodox dogma, encouraged      G. Antoniadis to read the Bible in the light of the      accused's own beliefs as a member of the Pentecostal      Church, questioned the holy traditions and recommended      G. Antoniadis to visit the church of the Pentecostal sect      in Athens.        Acting in the same capacity, the accused committed the      offence of proselytism between May 1987 and February 1988      by engaging in several acts which, however, gave rise to a      single, albeit continuing, breach of the relevant criminal      provision; acting with the aim of intruding on and changing      the religious beliefs of airman A. Kokkalis, an Orthodox      Christian who served in the same unit, the accused tried on      approximately thirty occasions to persuade A. Kokkalis to      become a member of the sect of the Church of Pentecost by      engaging, persistently and importunately, in discussions      with A. Kokkalis on the correctness of the accused's      beliefs as a member of the sect of the Pentecostal Church,      questioning the holiness of the Christian Orthodox Church,      inviting A. Kokkalis to listen to taped recordings on the      beliefs of the Pentecostal sect, taking advantage of the      trust inherent in a relationship between a subordinate and      a superior and of the naivety and inexperience of      A. Kokkalis, a person of young age, and telling him that in      the accused's church some persons started speaking foreign      languages under the effect of the Holy Power.        Acting in the same capacity, the accused committed the      offence of proselytism between spring 1989 and      18 August 1989 in the place mentioned above by engaging in      several acts which, however, gave rise to a single, albeit      continuing, breach of the relevant criminal provision;      acting with the aim of intruding on and changing the      religious beliefs of airman N. Kafkas, who served under his      orders in the same unit, and taking advantage of the trust      inherent in a relationship between a subordinate and a      superior, and of the naivety and inexperience of the young      man, the accused tried to persuade N. Kafkas to become a      member of the sect of the Church of Pentecost by      continually, persistently and importunately expounding on      his beliefs concerning the sect of the Pentecostal Church,      continually reading and explaining to N. Kafkas the Bible      in the light of the accused's own beliefs and providing      N. Kafkas with copies of a publication of his dogma      entitled 'Christianity'. The accused succeeded in      converting N. Kafkas by taking advantage of the latter's      inexperience concerning theological matters and the      influence he had on N. Kafkas because of his position and      rank."   25.   The court also found that the first applicant had engaged in proselytism vis-à-vis another airman, S. Voikos.   26.   In respect of the second applicant the court held the following:        "The accused, while he was a military officer, ..., serving      in Unit X, committed the offence of proselytism in the      military camp of this unit between November 1986 and      December 1987 by engaging in several acts which, however,      gave rise to a single, albeit continuing, breach of the      relevant criminal provision; taking advantage of the      authority he could exercise because of the difference in      rank on airman G. Antoniadis, who served in the same unit,      the accused tried on approximately seven occasions and on      dates which have not been specified to intrude on and      change the religious beliefs of G. Antoniadis by means of      skilful discussions with him concerning religion and      pressing exhortations; the accused urged G. Antoniadis to      study, because of his youth, nothing but the Gospel where      G. Antoniadis would find the truth which differed from the      Orthodox dogma; he also tried to convince G. Antoniadis by      means of a skilful interpretation of extracts from the Holy      Gospel, in accordance with the beliefs of the sect of the      Pentecost, that the Orthodox faith is not correct, that      G. Antoniadis should adopt the beliefs of the accused,      urging him at the same time in a pressing manner to visit      while on leave the church of the Pentecostal sect in      Athens.        The accused also committed the offence of proselytism in      Volos in 1988 by engaging in several acts which, however,      gave rise to a single, albeit continuing, breach of the      relevant criminal provision; taking advantage of the      inexperience and intellectual weakness of A. Zounara, he      tried on several occasions and on dates which have not been      specified to intrude on and change the religious beliefs of      A. Zounara engaging in a skilful analysis of the beliefs of      the sect of the Pentecost and of their difference from the      Orthodox faith and elaborating on the correctness of the      former; he tried persistently to convince A. Zounara that      the followers of the Pentecostal Church bore marks given to      them by God, that they could prophesy the future, that      A. Zounara and her children were possessed by the devil,      that the devil was fighting to keep control over her, that      A. Zounara worshipped idols and daemons and that the      Pentecostal church was the holder of the truth; the accused      also urged A. Zounara in a pressing manner to get baptised      and become a member of the Pentecostal Church.        The accused also committed the offence of proselytism in      Volos on a date which has not been specified towards the      beginning of June 1989; the accused, having been summoned      by I. Bairamis, another officer, went to the house of      A. Bairamis, I. Bairamis's brother, where H. Apostolidis,      the brother-in-law of I. and A. Bairamis, a follower of the      sect of the Pentecostal Church, was in a delirious state      under the influence of his religious beliefs foaming,      invoking Christ's name and saying 'thank you Christ,      because I have known the truth, I see the devil in my      wife's and my children's faces'; his mere appearance having      calmed H. Apostolidis, the accused skilfully took advantage      of the above-mentioned incident and tried to intrude on and      change the religious beliefs of A. Bairamis, M. Bairami,      S. Bairami, E. Bairami, who were present during the      incident and had been impressed by it, and of a number of      neighbours who gathered afterwards; the accused preached to      them elaborating on the beliefs of the sect of the      Pentecostal Church, telling them, among others, that their      church was the correct one and not the Orthodox religion,      that in 1992 the world would come to an end and the church      would be 'captured'; the accused urged them persistently      and importunately to believe in the true Christ and told      them that, by virtue of being Christian Orthodox, they had      taken sides with the devil."   27.   In respect of the third applicant the court held the following:        "The accused, while he was a military officer, ..., serving      in Unit X, committed the offence of proselytism in the      military camp of this unit between May 1987 and      February 1988 by engaging in several acts which, however,      gave rise to a single, albeit continuing, breach of the      relevant criminal provision; acting with the aim of      intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman      A. Kokkalis, an Orthodox Christian who served in the same      unit, and taking advantage of the trust inherent in a      relationship between a subordinate and a superior, the      accused tried more than fifty times to convince A. Kokkalis      that the teachings of the Orthodox faith were not correct      on a number of issues, such as the virginity of the Holy      Mother, the ranks of the priests, the power of the Holy      Spirit etc.; the accused would engage with A. Kokkalis in      persistent and importunate discussions regarding the      teachings of the sect of the Pentecostal Church, of which      the accused was a follower, he would tell A. Kokkalis that      the teachings of the sect and not those of the Orthodox      Church were correct and he would urge A. Kokkalis to visit      a place in Larissa where the followers of the Pentecostal      Church used to gather and to become a member; the accused      also gave A. Kokkalis a free copy of a periodical published      by the followers of the Pentecostal Church entitled      'Christianity'; in the course of the above-mentioned      encounters the accused intentionally failed to reveal to      A. Kokkalis that he was a member of the Pentecostal sect.        Acting in the same capacity the accused committed the      offence of proselytism in the same place for a period of      four to five months in 1988 by engaging in several acts      which, however, gave rise to a single, albeit continuing,      breach of the relevant criminal provision; acting with the      aim of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of      A. Zounara, an Orthodox Christian, and skilfully taking      advantage of her inexperience in religious matters and her      intellectual weakness, which resulted from her low level of      education, the accused tried importunately to persuade      A. Zounara to be baptised and become a member of the sect      of the Pentecostal Church telling her constantly that he      bore signs given to him by God, that he could tell the      future and that she and her children were possessed; the      accused intended to undermine A. Zounara's faith in      Orthodoxy and convert her to the sect of the Pentecostal      Church.        Acting in the same capacity the accused committed the      offence of proselytism in the same place between spring      1989 and 18 August 1989 by engaging in several acts which,      however, gave rise to a single, albeit continuing, breach      of the relevant criminal provision; acting with the aim of      intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman      N. Kafkas, an Orthodox Christian who served in the same      unit, and taking advantage of the trust inherent in a      relationship between a subordinate and a superior and of      the naivety and inexperience of N. Kafkas, the accused      tried to persuade N. Kafkas to adhere to the sect of the      Pentecostal Church; the accused would engage in continual,      persistent and importunate analysis of his beliefs      regarding the sect of the Pentecostal Church, read to      N. Kafkas continually the Gospel which the accused would      interpret in accordance with his own beliefs, give to      N. Kafkas publications of his sect and take N. Kafkas to      his place of worship; the accused succeeded in converting      N. Kafkas taking advantage of his inexperience concerning      religious matters and the influence he had on N. Kafkas      because of his position and rank."   28.   The court also found that the third applicant had engaged in proselytism vis-à-vis a warrant officer, Th. Tsikas.   29.   The court imposed on the first applicant the penalties of five months' imprisonment for the proselytism of G. Antoniadis, five months' imprisonment for the proselytism of A. Kokkalis, five months' imprisonment for the proselytism of S. Voikos and seven months' imprisonment for the proselytism of N. Kafkas. The court ordered the first applicant to serve an overall sentence of thirteen months' imprisonment.   30.   On the second applicant the court imposed the penalties of   five months' imprisonment for the proselytism of G. Antoniadis, five months' imprisonment for the proselytism of A. Zounara, and eight months' imprisonment for the proselytism of A. Bairamis, M. Bairami and the others. The court ordered the second applicant to serve an overall sentence of twelve months' imprisonment.   31.   On the third applicant the court imposed the penalties of   eight months' imprisonment for the proselytism of A. Kokkalis, five months' imprisonment for the proselytism of A. Zounara, five months' imprisonment for the proselytism of Th. Tsikas and seven months' imprisonment for the proselytism of N. Kafkas. The court ordered the third applicant to serve an overall sentence of fourteen months' imprisonment.   32.   Finally, the court ordered that the penalties should be converted to fines and that they should not be enforced provided that the applicants did not commit new criminal offences in the following three years.   33.   The applicants appealed immediately to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court (Anatheoritiko Dikastirio), being a court composed of five military judges. Their appeal was heard on 7 October 1992.   34.   The appeal court heard a number of witnesses among whom I. Stamoulis who repeated what he had testified before the first instance court. The court also heard N. Kafkas who testified that he had served between the winter of 1988 and August 1989 in Unit X under the orders of the first and third applicants. The two applicants did not put any pressure on the witness to become a member of the Pentecostal Church. The witness had himself approached the third applicant and asked him why he was so peaceful. The third applicant replied that this was the result of reading the Gospel. The two applicants were not importunate towards the witness. They had simply suggested to him that he read the Bible. When the witness did so, he realised a number of points of divergence between the teachings of the Orthodox Church and the Bible. The witness did not have any discussions with the first and third applicants concerning the Orthodox and Pentecostal Church. The witness simply turned to the two applicants when he had any questions concerning the Bible and always found their replies convincing. The two applicants never gave him any Pentecostal literature to read. They never told the witness to go to the Pentecostal church. The third applicant, who was responsible for the witness, never authorised the witness's absence from the air-force. The witness went to the Pentecostal church for the first time in September 1989 after he had been discharged from the armed forces. The witness had never heard that the first and third applicants had approached other airmen in order to talk to them about their religion. The witness never told his father, A. Kafkas, that the first and third applicants had proselytised him. A. Kafkas's testimony was false.   35.   The appeal court also read the record of the hearing before the first instance court, including the testimony of the various witnesses. It also read a number of statements taken by the investigating judge, among which the statements of A. Kafkas, who had not been summoned to appear as a witness before the appeal court. In his statement to the investigating judge, A. Kafkas had mentioned, inter alia, that his son, N. Kafkas, when discharged from the armed forces, had brought home, together with his personal belongings, a number of issues of the periodical "Christianity" which had been published while N. Kafkas was in the armed forces. N. Kafkas had told A. Kafkas that the officers with whom N. Kafkas had been serving in the armed forces had suggested to N. Kafkas to take off the cross he used to wear. N. Kafkas failed to give A. Kafkas any explanations why he had brought back home his television and radio sets. In December 1989 N. Kafkas told A. Kafkas that he had been proselytised by the first and third applicants. A. Kafkas had found the telephone numbers of some officers in his son's Bible. He then inquired and found out the names of the remaining officers. A. Kafkas had initially objected to his son's being called to testify, but then withdrew his objection.   36.   In a judgment pronounced immediately after the hearing the appeal court rejected a plea raised by the defence to the effect that the accused had merely exercised a constitutional right. It also upheld most of the applicants' convictions, using the same reasoning as the first instance court. It reversed, however, the conviction of the first applicant for the proselytism of S. Voikos and that of the third applicant for the proselytism of Th. Tsikas.   37.   The appeal court imposed on the first and third applicants in respect of the convictions it had upheld the same penalties as the first instance court. However, their overall sentences were reduced to eleven and twelve months' imprisonment respectively. The second applicant's penalties were reduced by the appeal court to four months' imprisonment for the proselytism of G. Antoniadis, four months' imprisonment for the proselytism of A. Zounara, and six months' imprisonment for the proselytism of A. Bairamis, M. Bairami and the others. His overall sentence was reduced to ten months' imprisonment.   38.   As none of the overall sentences imposed involved more than one year's imprisonment, they were automatically converted by the court into pecuniary penalties of 1,000 drachmas per day. The court finally ordered that the penalties should not be enforced provided that the applicants did not commit new criminal offences in the following three years.   39.   The applicants appealed in cassation. In a judgment delivered on 30 July 1993 the Court of Cassation (Arios Pagos) considered that the crime of proselytism was committed when a person attempted to intrude directly or indirectly on the religious beliefs of a person of different religious convictions, with the aim of undermining them, using one of the indicatively enumerated means in the relevant criminal provision.   40.   Article 4 of Law 1363/38 was found to be fully in accordance with the provisions of the Greek Constitution which guarantee the principle nullum crimen sine lege certa and the right to religious freedom. It was also found to be in accordance with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, since it did not purport to criminalise religious beliefs, but only the attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of someone else with the aim of changing them; such an attempt is fully inconsistent with religious freedom which creates an obligation to respect the religious beliefs of every person of a different religious persuasion. As a result, the court rejected the applicant's plea that the law was unconstitutional.   41.   As regards the particular circumstances of the case, the court considered that the military courts had correctly interpreted and applied Article 4 of Law 1363/38 when they convicted the applicants using the particular reasoning. The court rejected the applicant's appeal.   B.    Relevant domestic law   42.   Article 4 of Law 1363/38, as amended by Law 1672/39, provides as follows:        "1. Anyone engaging in proselytism shall be liable to      imprisonment and a fine of between 1,000 drachmas and      50,000 drachmas; he shall, moreover, be subject to police      supervision for a period of between six months and one year      to be fixed by the court when convicting the offender. The      term of imprisonment may not be commuted to a fine.        2.   By 'proselytism' is meant, in particular, any direct or      indirect attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of a      person of a different religious persuasion (eterodoxos),      with the aim of undermining those beliefs, either by any      kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral      support or material assistance, or by fraudulent means or      by taking advantage of his inexperience, trust, need, low      intellect or naivety.        3.   The commission of such an offence in a school or other      educational establishment or philanthropic institution      shall constitute a particularly aggravating circumstance."   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaints declared admissible   43.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaints that the Greek law on proselytism on the basis of which they were convicted was not lex certa, that their convictions constituted unjustified interferences with their rights to freedom of religion and expression and that they were subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to freedom of religion.   B.    Points at issue   44.   The Commission considers that these complaints fall to be divided into two groups. The first group concerns the conviction of the applicants for proselytism of military personnel of their unit; the second group concerns the convictions of applicants for proselytism of civilians. For both these groups, the points at issue are therefore   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 7 (Art. 7) of the Convention -     whether there has been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the      Convention and   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the      Convention in conjunction with Article 9 (Art. 9).   C.    As regards Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention   45.   Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention provides as follows:        "1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience      and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion      or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others      and in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief,      in worship, teaching, practice and observance.        2.    Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be      subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are      necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public      safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or      for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."   46.   The Commission considers that the applicants' convictions for proselytism and the penalties they received in that connection amount to an interference with their right to "freedom to manifest (their) religion or belief". Such an interference is contrary to Article 9 (Art. 9)   unless it is "prescribed by law", directed at one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" for achieving them.   1.    Whether the interference was "prescribed by law"   47.   The applicants submit that the ambiguous, vague and overbroad language of Article 4 of Law 1363/38 is not compatible with the requirement of legal certainty under Article 9 para. 2 (Art. 9-2) of the Convention. The case-law relied on by the Government proves that any form of evangelism could be considered to be a crime by the Greek courts. This case-law left the applicants in doubt as to whether they could give testimony with impunity of their faith to their colleagues, especially since there were no decisions concerning members of the armed forces.   48.   The respondent Government submit that the applicants' conviction was "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 9 para. 2 (Art. 9-2) of the Convention. They refer to the judgment of 25 May 1993 of the Court in the Kokkinakis case and specify that, although Article 4 of Law 1363/38, as amended by Law 1672/39, does not contain an exhaustive enumeration of the means by which the offence of proselytism may be committed, this is necessary to avoid excessive rigidity and keep pace with changing circumstances. Moreover, the letter of the provision is supplemented by a body of settled national case-law, which is mentioned in the Court's judgment in the Kokkinakis case.   49.   The Commission recalls that in its Kokkinakis judgment of 25 May 1993 the European Court of Human Rights noted that, in order to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances, many criminal statutes are inevitably couched in terms which are, to a greater or lesser extent, vague. Although the Greek law on proselytism fell within that