CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Resolution ResDH(2004)32 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 3 May 2001, final on 3 August 2001 (Friendly settlement) in the case of Stefanov against Bulgaria   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 June 2004 at the 885th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Stefanov case delivered on 3 May 2001 and transmitted on the same date to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 32438/96) against Bulgaria, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 July 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr   Ivailo Stefanov, a Bulgarian national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating to the criminal conviction of the applicant, a Jehovah witness, for having refused to serve in the army on the grounds of conscientious objection;   Whereas in its judgment of 3 May 2001 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list;   Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement the Government of Bulgaria stated as follows:   "a)     all criminal proceedings and judicial sentences in Bulgaria of Bulgaria citizens since 1991 (especially but not limited to [Mr I. S. and three other applicants in other cases]) for refusing military service by virtue of their individual conscientious objection but who were willing at the same time to perform alternative civilian service shall be dismissed and all penalties and/or disabilities heretofore imposed in these cases shall be eliminated as if there was never a conviction for a violation of the law, thus the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria undertakes the responsibility to introduce draft legislation before the National Assembly for a total amnesty for these cases;     b)     That the alternative civilian service in Bulgaria is performed under a purely civilian administration and the military authority is not involved in civilian service and such service shall be similar in duration to that required for military service by the law on military service then in force,     c)     That conscientious objectors have the same rights as all Bulgarian citizens to manifest their beliefs whether alone or in union with others after hours and on days off during the term of performing said civilian service without prejudice, sanction or another disability or impediment. (see (...) Kokkinakis v. Greece [judgment of 26.09.1996] ), (...)     e)     That the respondent Government will pay to the applicant the sum of 2   500 Bulgarian levs for costs and expenses;”   Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that on 11 September 2001 the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly settlement concluded before the Court and had taken all other measures to fulfil its undertakings under this friendly settlement, this information appears in the appendix to this resolution,   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Bulgaria, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2004)32   Information provided by the Government of Bulgaria during the examination of the Stefanov case by the Committee of Ministers     The applicant has had his rights reinstated on the basis of Article 86, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code. All the consequences related to his conviction were thus erased.   The Bulgarian Parliament subsequently adopted, on 31 July 2002, a Law on the Amnesty for crimes provided by Article 361, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (refusal to perform military service), related to the exercise of the constitutional law of freedom of conscience, of freedom of thought and the free choice of religion, committed between the entry into force of the Constitution on 13   July 1991 and the entry into force on 31   December   1998, of the Law on the Replacement of Military Obligations by an Alternative Service.   Under the terms of Article 2 of the Law on the Amnesty, persons who committed such acts are exempted from penal responsibility to purge the sentence or to suffer the consequences of the judgment. The law erases the fact and the consequences of the convictions imposed on conscientious objectors for such acts committed during the period indicated.   In accordance with the Law on the Replacement of Military Obligations by an Alternative Service, citizens who perform an alternative service have the same rights as all Bulgarian citizens to express their convictions, individually or collectively, apart from in the place of employment (Article 4, paragraph 1 and Article 30 of the Law).   The Law provides that alternative service may be performed if the persons concerned so request, under the supervision of an entirely civil administration. In these cases the military authority would not participate in the organisation of the service. The length of alternative service is one-and-a-half times longer than that of military service (Article 15 of the Law).   The Bulgarian government thus considers that it has complied with the terms of the friendly settlement and that there is no risk of reproducing a situation similar to that at the origin of this case. Consequently, Bulgaria has fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention.