CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s289A4F99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     803 27.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Bayatyan v. Armenia (application no. 23459/03 )   CONVICTION OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR NOT IN BREACH OF CONVENTION   No violation of Article 9 (right to freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant is an Armenian national, born in 1983. He is a Jehovah’s Witness.   Declared fit for military service, the applicant became eligible for the spring draft of 2001. In letters sent, among others, to the General Prosecutor and the Military Commissioner he declared that he refused to perform military service for conscientious reasons but that he was prepared to do alternative civil service. He did not appear for military service in mid-May 2001, as ordered by a summons, and temporarily moved away from home so that he would not be drafted by force. Two weeks later the Parliamentary Commission for State and Legal Affairs informed the applicant that since there was no law in Armenia on alternative service, he was obliged to serve in the Armenian army.   In October 2001 the applicant was charged with draft evasion. Placed in detention, the district court convicted him as charged in October 2002 and sentenced him to one year and six months in prison, later increased by the Court of Appeal to two and a half years. That court stated essentially that the applicant did not accept his guilt and that he had hidden from preliminary investigation. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation in January 2003. In July of that year the applicant was released on parole after having served ten and a half months of his sentence.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained that his conviction for refusal to serve in the army had violated his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention. He also submitted that the Article should be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions, namely the fact that the majority of Council of Europe Member States had recognised the right of conscientious objection and that Armenia in 2000, before becoming a member, had committed to “pardon all conscientious objectors sentenced to prison terms”.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 July 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President, Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ann Power (Ireland), judges,   and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court first noted that it was legitimate to take account of the fact that a majority of the Council of Europe Member States had adopted laws providing for alternative service for conscientious objectors.   However, Article 9 had to be read together with Article 4 § 3 (b), which excluded from the definition of forced labour, as prohibited by the Convention, “any service of a military character or, in cases of conscientious objectors, in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service”. It followed that the choice whether or not to recognise conscientious objectors was left to each Contracting Party. At the time of the applicant’s refusal to perform military service, the right to conscientious objection was not recognised in Armenia. His conviction had therefore not been in breach of his Convention rights, even though he could have had a legitimate expectation to be allowed to perform alternative service, given the Armenian Government’s declaration to pardon conscientious objectors.   The Court further noted that a law on alternative service had been adopted in Armenia in the meantime, but considered that its substance and manner of application fell beyond the scope of this application.   The Court therefore held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 9.   Judge Power expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The decision is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) or Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.