Greece

Previous reports: 2023/24

Principal EBCO concerns

• Alternative service is punitive and discriminatory, inter alia, in terms of longer duration, discriminatory geographical restrictions, and compensation being below the poverty threshold.

• Conscientious objectors are subjected to inquiry and are discriminated against when applying on ideological grounds. The process has yet to be placed under the full control of civilian authorities.

• Punishment of certain categories of conscientious objectors continues, in violation of international law. Such punishment may also be repeated in violation of ne bis in idem.

• Non-compliance to the UN Human Rights Committee decision on Petromelidis v. Greece.

Developments

As reported by Georgios Karatzas:

EBCO's collective complaint to the ECSR for violations of social and economic rights of conscientious objectors

On 30 June 2024, EBCO submitted a collective complaint to the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) concerning violations of the (Revised) European Social Charter in the case of conscientious objectors in Greece.²

The complaint concerns violations of social and economic rights of conscientious objectors to military service, performing the alternative civilian service, in conjunction with the violation of the right to freedom from discrimination. EBCO submits that Greece is in violation of Article 30 (The right to protection against poverty and social exclusion) and Article 31 (The right to housing), insofar conscientious objectors performing alternative civilian service are not provided with adequate resources and housing, as well as Article 16 (The right of the family to social, legal and economic protection), insofar the families of conscientious objectors are also affected and not adequately protected. EBCO submits that Greece is in violation of the above articles in themselves, as well as in conjunction with Article E (Non-discrimination), insofar the legal provisions for conscientious objectors performing alternative civilian service, and their families, provide less protection in comparison to the protection provided to conscripts performing military service, and their families. The discrimination faced by the conscientious objectors is on the grounds of “religion” (as for those conscientious objectors citing religious grounds for their conscientious objection), and “political or other opinion” (as for those conscientious objectors citing ideological grounds for their conscientious objection), which are both covered in the definition of discrimination in Article E. In certain cases, the above violations are in conjunction with violations of other articles, such as Article 1.2, as for the length of alternative service for a specific category of reduced service, and Article 11, as for providing housing inside hospitals, which increases health risks.

The complaint was registered on 1 July 2024 and has been given the reference number 242/2024.³ In conformity with Article 6 of the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter providing for a system of collective complaints and in application of Rule 28§2 and Rule 29§1 of the Rules of the European Committee of Social Rights, the President of the Committee has set 6 September 2024 as the time limit within which the respondent Government could submit written observations on admissibility. According to the information received, it appears that the Greek government did not raise any objections as of the admissibility of the complaint.

By the end of 2024, the examination of the admissibility of EBCO's collective complaint by the ECSR was still pending.

Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee

In October and November 2024, during its 142nd session, the Human Rights Committee (hereinafter the Committee) examined the 3rd periodic report of Greece, concerning compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and issued its concluding observations.

Worth noting that in the context of this procedure there have been two submissions to the Human Rights Committee fully dedicated to conscientious objectors to military service (by Conscience and Peace Tax International (CPTI) jointly with EBCO,⁴ and by Connection e.V.⁵), while issues of conscientious objectors were also cited in at least two further submissions (by Amnesty International⁶ and the Greek National Commission for Human Rights⁷).

Among numerous and serious human rights issues in Greece, the Committee indeed addressed, once more, issues of civil and political rights of conscientious objectors to military service in Greece.

The relevant paragraph of the concluding observations of the Committee reads as follows:⁸

“Conscientious objection to compulsory military service

1. The Committee remains concerned about: (a) the length of alternative

service for conscientious objectors, which is longer than military service; (b) the composition of the committee responsible for examining applications from citizens to be granted conscientious objector status and its reported lack of independence and impartiality; and (c) reports indicating that conscientious objectors are discriminated against on the basis of the different grounds of objection to military service (arts. 14, 18 and 26).⁹

29. The State party should ensure that its legislation recognizing the right to conscientious objection to military service encompasses an alternative to military service that is accessible to all conscientious objectors and is not punitive or discriminatory in terms of its nature, cost or duration. The State party should also consider placing the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status under the full control of civilian authorities.”

A careful reading of the concluding observations reveals that the Committee has, more or less, repeated its concerns on issues that had been already cited during the previous examination, in 2015, and issued similar recommendations. More specifically, the Committee cited:

• The issue of length of alternative service. This is even though the discrepancy between the length of alternative service and that of military service has been somehow reduced in recent years, given the 2021 increase of the length of military service in the Army, where the vast majority of conscripts serve. Nowadays, the discrepancy between alternative and military service ranges between 25% and 67%, depending on the category of full or reduced service according, mainly, to family status. It is important, though, that the Committee has raised the issue of length in a country situation where the (full) alternative service is 25% longer than the (full) military service.

It is possible that the Committee took seriously into consideration that, in 2019, the length of alternative service had been reduced and then increased, within only a few months, by different governments, without any reasonable grounds whatsoever.

• In any case, the Committee did not limit itself on the issue of length, but also mentioned, once more, issues of nature and cost of the alternative service. (“not punitive or discriminatory in terms of its nature, cost or duration”)

• The issue of the composition of the committee examining applications for granting CO status (despite the reduction of the number of military members of such committee from 2 to 1, and the increase of civilian members from 3 to 4, in 2019). However, once more, the Committee addressed also more generally the issue of examination of applications (“consider placing the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status under the full control of civilian authorities”)

• The issue of discrimination between different groups of conscientious objectors on the basis of the different grounds of objection to military service, as well the access of all conscientious objectors to alternative service (“accessible to all conscientious objectors”).

It is important to note that in addition to articles 14 and 18 of ICCPR cited in the concluding observations of 2015, the Committee, this time, cited also article 26 concerning discrimination.

The only issue which is not explicitly mentioned by the Committee, in comparison with the issues cited in 2015, is that of the repeated punishment of certain conscientious objectors (i.e., repeated prosecutions and sentences, as well fines, for insubordination, for those who are not recognised as conscientious objectors, or do not perform or conclude, for some reason, the (punitive) alternative civilian service). A repeated punishment which the Committee has consistently stated that it is in violation of the ne bis in idem principle, i.e., “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.” (art. 14 (7) ICCPR). However, this issue too, even though not explicitly mentioned, it is nevertheless included implicitly by citing article 14. As well by the direct reference to the previous concluding observations of 2015 (footnote 7 in the original document).

Worth noting also that the Committee, as far as it concerns the repeated punishment of conscientious objectors in Greece, in violation of the ne bis in idem principle, has not highlighted this issue only in the context of the concluding observations of 2015, but also more recently, in 2021-2022, in the context of the decision on the case of Petromelidis v. Greece¹⁰ (see also at the relevant part).

Following the issuing of the Committee's concluding observations, the opposition political party of SYRIZA submitted at the parliament an extensive question about their implementation, signed by 12 MPs, and addressing 9 Ministers of the government, including the Minister of National Defence. In the question, the issue of conscientious objectors to military service is briefly mentioned, among many other issues, accompanied by a recommendation of the party, along the lines of the Committee's one, i.e. “alternative service that is accessible to all conscientious objectors which should not be punitive or discriminatory in terms of its nature, cost or duration”. By the end of 2024 the Ministry of National Defence has not responded.¹¹

Follow-up of the Human Rights Committee on the Petromelidis v. Greece case

During the same 142nd session of October-November 2024, the Committee examined to which extent Greece has implemented the Views of the Committee in the Petromelidis v. Greece case, in which violations of Articles 9 (1), 12 (2), 14 (7) and 18 (1) had been found. This was case of a conscientious objector who had been persecuted for decades and repeatedly punished, for not performing the military service, nor an extremely punitive, by that time, alternative civilian service.

Before examining the assessment of the Committee in this particular case, it should be noted that the Assessment criteria (as revised during the 118th session), are as follows:

Assessment of replies:

A. Reply/action largely satisfactory: The State party has provided evidence of significant action taken towards the implementation of the recommendation made by the Committee.

B. Reply/action partially satisfactory: The State party has taken steps towards the implementation of the recommendation, but additional information or action remains necessary.

C. Reply/action not satisfactory: A response has been received, but the action taken or information provided by the State party is not relevant or does not implement the recommendation.

D. No cooperation with the Committee: No follow-up report has been received after the reminder(s).

E. Information or measures taken are contrary to or reflect rejection of the recommendation.

In the present case, as far as it concerns all issues concerning personally Mr. Petromelidis, the Committee, reasonably, rated the response of Greece with C:

(a) Expunging criminal records: C

(b) Reimbursement of sums paid as fines [i.e., financial penalties instead of imprisonment]: C

(c) Adequate compensation [for all the violations suffered, including repeated arrests/imprisonment, as well further ones, like prohibition to leave the country, etc.]: C

The assessment of the Committee means that, for these issues “Reply/action not satisfactory: A response has been received, but the action taken or information provided by the State party is not relevant or does not implement the recommendation.” This is reasonable because, in fact, the State party, to date, has not taken any action whatsoever to provide Mr. Petromelidis with an effective remedy, i.e. full reparation.

However, as far as it concerns the broader issues, the Committee rated Greece's response with B:

(d) Non-repetition [i.e., “take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future”]: B

(e) Review of the legislation [i.e., “the State party should review its legislation with a view to ensuring the effective guarantee of the right to conscientious objection under article 18 (1) of the Covenant, for instance by providing for the possibility of undertaking alternative civilian service that is not punitive and discriminatory in nature”]: B

This rating means: “Reply/action partially satisfactory: The State party has taken steps towards the implementation of the recommendation, but additional information or action remains necessary.”

In EBCO's view, this assessment is wrongful, because whatever insufficient improvements had been made to the legislation concerning conscientious objectors, in 2019, besides the fact that they have been partially overturned by the next government, in any case they had occurred prior to 2021, when the Committee issued its Views in the Petromelidis' case. In fact, following the issuing of the Views, no substantial legislative action whatsoever has been taken in order to improve the legislation and bring it in line with international human rights law and standards. On the contrary, the only attempt to amend the relevant legislation concerned an attempt to deteriorate (instead of improving) the legislation, i.e. the attempt to increase the number of military members of the special committee which examines applications for CO status. An attempt which occurred when the Ministry of National Defence published a bill for public consultation containing such a provision, in December 2022,¹² and which was finally thwarted following backlash, including, inter alia, by conscientious objectors, Amnesty International,¹³ and most importantly by the Greek National Commission for Human Rights,¹⁴

In any case, the combination of the Committee's concluding observation concerning the 3rd periodic report of Greece, as well the assessment concerning the (non) implementation of Views in the Petromelidis' case, demonstrate the obligation of Greece to comply without delay with the decisions of the Committee and implement international law as far as it concerns the conscientious objectors to military service.

Conscientious objector punished with extension of alternative service for “unjustifiable absence”

A conscientious objector has been punished with extension of the duration of the already punitive alternative civilian service for “unjustifiable absence”.

The conscientious objector, who was serving at the General Hospital of Chalkida, had requested some days or weeks of (additional) leave, in order to be able to work and cope with the extremely punitive financial conditions of the alternative civilian service. The conscientious objector had asked for an “unpaid leave” equivalent to the one provided to public employees, and to perform these days or weeks as additional time at the end of the period of his service. His request was firmly substantiated, based on a provision of the law which equates conscientious objectors with the public employees of the same institution on certain issues.

However, both the administration of the General Hospital of Chalkida, as well the Recruitment Agency of Attica, denied granting such an “unpaid leave”. Furthermore, despite the pressing need for leave in order to work and earn the necessary income to be able to conclude the punitive alternative civilian service, they considered his absence as “unjustifiable”. Subsequently, making use of a provision of the law concerning “unjustifiable absence”, they punished the conscientious objector by requesting to perform an additional time twice the time he was absent. In addition to that, the initial calculation of the required additional time, by the General Hospital of Chalkida, did not include holidays, but rather only working days, thus extending even further the actual duration of the alternative service. Finally, following, inter alia, a complaint of the conscientious objector to the Greek Ombudsman, the Recruitment Agency of Attica insisted on considering the absence as “unjustifiable” and on the requirement to perform an additional time twice the time he was absent, and only accepted that the calculation of the additional time should have included holidays.

Arrests of civilians for insubordination

According to official police reports,¹⁵ in 2024, police continued to arrest civilians for insubordination, i.e. for draft evasion. It appears that most such arrests were random, in the context of broader police operations.

Indications of unreported criminalisation

Despite not receiving public information about trials of conscientious objectors to military service by military courts in 2024, EBCO has strong indications that the military courts continued to summon conscientious objectors to trials on charges of “insubordination” in 2024 and will continue to do so in 2025. However, it appears that certain conscientious objectors prefer not to reveal publicly or even to the authorities their conscientious grounds for not performing the military service (and the punitive alternative civilian service) and rather undergo the trial as “common insubordinates”, i.e. common draft evaders. In certain cases, this could be out of fear of harsher punishment in case they reveal that they are in fact conscientious objectors or if they make their trial a public issue. The harsher punishment could occur in different ways. On the one hand, while the conviction is almost certain (although occasionally there have been certain cases of acquittal, usually because of “technical” issues, like procedural errors during someone's call-up for military service), nevertheless, the sentence could vary at the discretion of the military court, i.e., usually it could range from some months up to 2 years for each period of insubordination. On the other hand, someone could fear that if he reveals that he is a conscientious objector, he could face harsher persecution after the first conviction and sentence for the first period of insubordination. This is related to the fact that a sentence for insubordination does not absolve someone from military duties, and conscientious objectors are repeatedly called-up for military service, and subsequently prosecuted and punished, in violation of the ne bis in idem principle. It is also related to the fact that an arrest concludes a period of insubordination, which means that, in such case, the next call-up will initiate a new period of insubordination, which will eventually entail an additional sentence. This means that the more times someone is arrested, the more periods of insubordination, and consequently sentences for insubordination, he accumulates. Therefore, someone could fear that if he declares publicly or to the authorities his conscientious objection to military service, he might be persecuted more systematically by the police, in comparison with common draft evaders.

CO status statistics for 2024

According to the official data provided to EBCO by the Greek Ministry of National Defence:¹⁶

Statistics of applications for conscientious objector status in 2024

Statistics of administrative appeals on applications for CO status in 2024

Research raises additional issues of lack independence and impartiality of the body examining applications for CO status

A new research by conscientious objectors published on 28 October 2024,¹⁷ challenges the independence and impartiality of the Chairs (or Presidents) of the Special Committee examining applications for conscientious objector status, who are members of the State's Legal Council,¹⁸ i.e. the body of lawyers of the government (different from the Council of State, the supreme administrative court). The research, which is citing more than 30 cases concerning conscientious objectors before the Council of State (Greece's supreme administrative court), reveals and documents that the vast majority of the Chairs of the Special Committee, (at least 4 out of 5 Regular Chairs, and at least 5 out of 6 Substitute Chairs, who have been appointed to the Special Committee since 2002 and until the date of the publication of the research), at some point, (prior, during or after they have served as Chairs of the Special Committee), have also represented the Ministry of National Defence in legal disputes versus conscientious objectors before the Council of State (Greece's supreme administrative court). The research also notes that the only Substitute Chair for whom it has not been possible to find, until now, a case representing the MoND versus conscientious objectors, nevertheless, according to official documents, he was serving at the Office of the Legal Counsel of the MoND, by the time he was appointed as Substitute Chair of the Special Committee.

The research documents a pattern of appointing as Regular or Substitute Chairs of the Special Committee, those members of the State's Legal Council who have already represented the MoND in legal cases versus conscientious objectors, as well a similar pattern of “employing” the actual Regular or Substitute Chairs of the Special Committee, during their term, in legal cases versus conscientious objectors.

This sheds new light to the lack of independence and impartiality of the assessment of applications for CO status, and specifically the Special Committee, for which the Human Rights Committee has raised concerns in all 3 previous concluding observations¹⁹. The question now is not only that the Minister of National Defence is taking the decision, or that it does so after a recommendation of a Special Committee which still has military participation. It is also, that the Chairs of the Special Committee (who might play a crucial role, inter alia, as their vote prevails in case of a split vote inside the Committee), are also directly related to the Ministry of National Defence and are involved in legal disputes versus conscientious objectors.

Greek Ministry of National Defence continues to disregard both international law, standards and recommendations as well domestic court judgements

In its response to an EBCO questionnaire, dated 23 of January 2025,²⁰ the Ministry of National Defence (MoND), despite obvious efforts to portray the situation in Greece as in conformity with international human rights law, in fact it rather continues to show contempt both for international human rights law and standards, as reflected in the recommendations of international bodies, as well as for judgements of domestic courts.

For example, the MoND continues to disregard the recent concluding observations of the Committee, including as for the issue of the length of the alternative civilian service. It is also interesting that the MoND invokes the (rather unfavourable for the conscientious objectors and obsolete) standard of the ECSR, that the duration of alternative service should not exceed 1.5 times (50% additional time) the duration of the military service,²¹ while in the same document, the MoND, itself, states that there is a category of reduced service for which conscientious objectors are required to perform 5 months of alternative civilian service instead of 3 months of military service, which is 67% additional time.²²

The MoND repeats the usual excuses that it has used in correspondence with international bodies and mandates, for all pending issues, as well the usual “tricks” to confuse the international community. For example, it states that those conscientious objectors performing alternative service, who are not provided food and housing by the institution where they are employed, receive a monthly amount of €223.53, and compares it with the (minimum) amount of €8.80 to certain conscripts performing military service.²³ Disregarding that the amount received by conscripts is in addition to food and housing provided by the armed forces, while the amount given to certain conscientious objectors is instead of food and housing. While other conscientious objectors, those receiving food and housing, they do not receive any amount at all. The MoND also conceals that the amount for conscripts in certain cases is greater and up to €140.87 (e.g. when having two children), while there is no equivalent provision for conscientious objectors having children.

The MoND continues to conflate the possibility for the professional members of the armed forces to resign for whatever reasons, which in certain cases, though, entails serious financial consequences for those resigning, as they have to pay heavy compensations to the state, ²⁴ with the right to conscientious objection for professional members of the armed forces, which should not entail any consequence whatsoever.

Furthermore, the MoND informs that during the past year there has not been, neither is underway, any legislative procedure concerning military service, conscientious objection or any related issue.²⁵ Which implies that there is no intention to comply with international human rights law and standards.

However, what is perhaps more striking in the response of the MoND is the paragraph explaining the reasons for which applications for CO status are rejected, which completely disregards, not only international human rights law and standards, but also relatively recent judgements of the Council of State, (Greece's Supreme Administrative Court).

The MoND states:

“The reason for which applications for eligibility for conscientious objector status and to perform alternative service are rejected is, mostly, because those interested do not demonstrate some specific ideology, which impedes them from performing armed military service, nor they associate their internal esprit with activities characteristically corresponding to the beliefs they claim in order to be recognized as conscientious objectors and to perform alternative service. Specifically, they do not prove that it is morally unbearable for them to enlist in the armed forces, they just declare that they would prefer to perform alternative service”.²⁶ (emphasis added)

However, the Council of State, in its judgements 2263/2023 and 2264/2023 has ruled that: a) it is not necessary for the conscientious objection to derive from affiliation to a specific religious or other system, b) it is not necessary to be combined with relevant activity or specific actions.²⁷

Greek Ombudsman insists on his objections concerning the current regime for conscientious objectors

In a response to an EBCO questionnaire,²⁸ the Greek Ombudsman has stated, inter alia, that [throughout the years] he has addressed meticulously the issue of alternative service of conscientious objectors, following a huge number of relevant complaints, on various issues. However, according to the Greek ombudsman, it's a fact that in recent years, following the reduction of the length of alternative service and the amendment of the composition of the relevant committee, (i.e., which examines applications for CO status), the relevant complaints, either by conscientious objectors serving [the alternative service], or by those interested to be granted this status, are minimum, and usually they focus on specific issues, such as the adequacy of the accommodation offered (as a condition for claiming the compensation instead of an inadequate accommodation), as well as how the time of release from alternative service is calculated (taking into account days of leave or unjustifiable absence). Nevertheless, always according to the Greek Ombudsman, his objections are repeated on any occasion. Such objections include the procedure for granting conscientious objector status (Annual Report 2013: “Personal interview as a mean to ascertain reasons of conscience is controversial per se insofar it submits an internal esprit to an examination of sincerity. […] They are required to reply to questions concerning sensitive personal data.”), as well as the sanctions for insubordination, especially the disproportionate amount of money of the administrative fine, its repeated imposition, as well as the fact that conscientious objectors are summoned to trials before military courts.

1. Population and armed forces figures are derived from The Military Balance 2025, published by the international Institute for Strategic Studies; military expenditure figures are estimates published by SIPRI (The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) in April 2025. ⤴
2. https://rm.coe.int/cc242casedoc1-en/1680b0dbd6⤴
3. https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-social-charter/-/no.-242/2024-european-bureau-for-conscientious-objection-ebco-v.-greece⤴
4. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCCPR%2FCSS%2FGRC%2F59918&Lang=en⤴
5. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCCPR%2FCSS%2FGRC%2F59913&Lang=en⤴
6. See particularly chapter 7 “Freedom of Religion and Belief (articles 14 and 18)”, pp. 12-14.https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCCPR%2FCSS%2FGRC%2F59911&Lang=en⤴
7. See paras. 41-44.https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCCPR%2FNHS%2FGRC%2F59915&Lang=en⤴
8. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Greece, (CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3), 28 November 2024, paras. 28-29. Available at: https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3⤴
9. CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2, para. 37, and CCPR/CO/83/GRC, para. 15.⤴
10. https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017⤴
11. Question No. 2352, 19 December 2024. Available in Greek, along with replies by Ministers at: https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/Koinovouleftikos-Elenchos/Mesa-Koinovouleutikou-Elegxou?pcm_id=6ee4a858-a835-418e-a2e4-b24c00f32956⤴
12. http://www.opengov.gr/mindefence/?p=6830⤴
13. [in Greek] Διεθνής Αμνηστία, «Ελλάδα: Να αποσυρθεί το άρθρο 62 που προτείνει μεταρρυθμίσεις του νόμου 3421/2005 καθώς αυτό θα παραβίαζε περαιτέρω τα δικαιώματα των αντιρρησιών συνείδησης», [“Greece: Withdraw article 62 proposing amendments of law 3421/2005 since this would further violate the rights of conscientious objectors”, 28 December Available Greek at: https://www.amnesty.gr/news/press/article/26957/ellada-na-aposyrthei-arthro-62-poy-proteinei-metarrythmiseis-toy-nomoy⤴
14. [in Greek] ΕΕΔΑ, Επιστολή της ΕΕΔΑ επί του Σχεδίου Νόμου του Υπουργείου Εθνικής Άμυνας «Μέριμνα υπέρ του προσωπικού των Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων, εξορθολογισμός της νομοθεσίας των Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων, οργάνωση της Εθνοφυλακής και άλλες διατάξεις», 9 January 2023 (published 17 January 2023). https://www.nchr.gr/2020-02-26-05-51-20/34-antirrisies-syneidisis/1538-epistoli-ypetha.html⤴
15. E.g. reports of 13 January 2024, 15 January 2024, 10 March 2024, 15 March 2024, 29 March 2024, 11 April 2024, 25 April 2024, 31 May 2024, 12 June 2024, 9 August 2024, 21 August 2024, 24 August 2024, 27 August 2024, 6 September 2024, 13 September 2024, 18 September 2024, 15 October 2024, 1 November 2024, 8 November 2024, 13 November 2024, 5 December 2024, 12 December 2024, 28 December 2024.⤴
16. Ministry of National Defence, “Conscientious Objectors”, (Φ.429/1/9727 Σ.1389), 23 January 2025, Annexes A and B, pp. 14-17.⤴
17. Available in Greek at: https://enalaktiki.wordpress.com/2024/10/28/%ce%b5%cf%81%ce%b5%cf%85%ce%bd%ce%b1-%cf%83%cf%87%ce%b5%ce%b4%cf%8c%ce%bd-%cf%8c%ce%bb%ce%bf%ce%b9-%ce%bf%ce%b9-%cf%80%cf%81%cf%8c%ce%b5%ce%b4%cf%81%ce%bf%ce%b9-%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%82-%ce%b5%ce%b9%ce%b4/#_edn1⤴
18. Also cited as State Legal Council or Legal Council of State.⤴
19. CCPR/CO/83/GRC, para. 15, CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2, paras. 37-38, CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3 paras. 28-29.⤴
20. Ministry of National Defence, “Conscientious Objectors”, (Φ.429/1/9727 Σ.1389), 23 January 2025.⤴
21. Ibid., para. στ(4) - f(4).⤴
22. Ibid., para. στ(2)(δ) - f(2)(d).⤴
23. Ibid. para. στ(6) - f(6).⤴
24. Ibid. para. ζ(1) and (2) - g(1) and (2).⤴
25. Ibid. para. ι(1) - j(1).⤴
26. Ibid. para. ε(6) - e(6).⤴
27. See EBCO Annual Report, “Conscientious Objection to Military Service in Europe 2023/24”, p. 87. Available at: https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/2024-05-15-EBCO_Annual_Report_2023-24.pdf⤴
28. Dated 30 January 2025, concerning the year 2024.⤴