Joint Submission by the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) and the Association of Greek Conscientious Objection (AGCO) to the UN Universal Periodic Review 53^rd session of the UPR Working Group

April 2026

Main submitting organization: The European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) was founded in 1979 in Brussels, Belgium, as an umbrella organisation for national associations of conscientious objectors, with the aim of promoting collective campaigns for the release of the imprisoned conscientious objectors and lobbying the European governments and European/UN institutions for the full recognition of the right to conscientious objection to military service and the end of the discrimination against conscientious objectors. EBCO publishes its annual report “Conscientious Objection to Military Service in Europe”; participates in public hearings at the European Parliament; together with the Association of Greek Conscientious Objection (AGCO) has regularly made submissions for the Universal Periodic Review of Greece; enjoys participatory status with the Council of Europe since 1998, is a member of the Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations of the Council of Europe since 2005 and is entitled to lodge collective complaints concerning the European Social Charter of the Council of Europe since 2021; is a full member of the European Youth Forum since 1995.

The Association of Greek Conscientious Objectors (AGCO) was created in 1988 with the goal of fighting for the recognition of conscientious objection and refusal to serve in the military as rights in Greece and the establishment of a fair alternative civilian service, without the highly deterrent and punitive nature it has today. It has been operating as an association since 2003 and represents in Greece the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO), and War Resisters’ International.

Main concerns and human rights violations

1. EBCO and AGCO have particular concerns regarding the following issues and human rights violations of conscientious objectors to military service in Greece.

2. The alternative service remains punitive and discriminatory in terms of:

• Insufficient benefits and wage. Conscientious objectors performing alternative service are either entitled food and housing, without any wage whatsoever, or otherwise receive a monthly wage¹ set since 2005 to €223.53, but they are prohibited to be paid any other amount of money for any reason.² Such wage is less than ¼ of the current statutory minimum wage (€920.00)³ and less than half the threshold of poverty for a household of a single person (€6,510 annually,⁴ which is equivalent to €542.5 monthly).

• Location of service, with conscientious objectors being explicitly prohibited by law to serve any part of the alternative service inside their region of residence (see details in the part about previous UPR recommendations). This problem has been exacerbated in recent years because of an acute housing crisis.⁵

• The duration of the alternative service remains punitive and discriminatory. Currently the full military service is 12 months⁶ (or 9 months in certain units and eastern border areas⁷), whereas the full alternative service is 15 months.⁸ There are three additional categories of reduced military and alternative service, mainly due to family status. The reduced alternative service is, in terms of ratio to the equivalent military one, even more punitive than the full alternative service: 33%-50% longer (12 months instead of 9 months of military service, or 8 in certain units and eastern border areas⁹), 50% longer (9 months instead of 6), and 67% longer (5 months instead of 3)¹⁰ compared to the equivalent category of reduced military service.

3. The alternative service remains under the supervision of the Ministry of National Defence, contrary to international¹¹ and European¹² standards and relevant recommendations of the Greek Ombudsman already since 1999,¹³ which raises serious concerns of not having a genuinely civilian character.

4. The examination of applications to perform alternative service, (i.e. for conscientious objector status), remains under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence and with military participation. The decision on applications for recognition of conscientious objectors is taken by the Minister of National Defence after a recommendation by a five-membered Special Committee which includes a military officer¹⁴ who is also the rapporteur and the secretary of this committee. This is in breach of the UN standards that any decision-making bodies considering applications for conscientious objector status should be independent and impartial under the full control of civilian authorities.¹⁵

5. Criminalisation and punishment of certain categories of conscientious objectors to military service which may include:

• Those whose conscientious objector (CO) status applications have been unfairly rejected because of the problematic procedure of examination. In this case they are required to perform military service and if they insist in their conscientious objection, they are declared insubordinate and face the relevant punishment (see below).

• Those who are granted CO status, but because of the punitive conditions (cost, location of service, duration), they find themselves unable to complete the service. In this case, their CO status is revoked (see the case of Zacharias Piazas below) and they are required to perform certain months of military service and if they insist in their conscientious objection, they are declared insubordinate and face the relevant punishment.

• Those who commit a disciplinary offence during their alternative service, which results in their CO status being revoked. In that case, they are required to perform months of military service and if they insist in their conscientious objection, they are declared insubordinate and face the relevant punishment.

• Most often, those who refuse to perform the (punitive and discriminatory) alternative service, including -but not limited to- those self-identified as “total objectors”. They are also declared insubordinate and face the relevant punishment.

6. The punishment for each period of insubordination includes in all cases:

• An administrative fine of €6,000,¹⁶ which is increased as long as it remains unpaid and can result also to confiscation of property.¹⁷

• A prison sentence up to 2 years.¹⁸ It is often, but not always, a suspended sentence, depending on the criminal record. Furthermore, it is usually eligible to be converted to a financial penalty of several thousands of euros – which is different from the administrative fine cited above.

• Further sanctions, such as: deprivations of the right to be employed in the public sector, and for those who have been irrevocably convicted for insubordination or desertion, the deprivation of the right to exercise a profession which requires a special permission by the authority and of the right to vote and to be elected. The “insubordinate” or deserters are prohibited from migrating abroad or from being employed in ships travelling abroad, and from having a passport issued or renewed, except for the insubordinate residing in foreign countries.¹⁹

7. In the case of conscientious objectors in Greece, the above punishment constitutes violations of articles 9,²⁰ 12,²¹ 18,²² 25,²³ 26²⁴ of ICCPR and the equivalent articles of ECHR and its protocols.

8. Repeated punishment which constitutes an additional violation, of the ne bis in idem principle (Article 14(7) of ICCPR).²⁵ Punishment for insubordination does not entail exemption from military duties. Consequently, conscientious objectors are repeatedly called-up and repeatedly punished.

9. Trials of conscientious objectors in military courts are a violation of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal (Article 6 of ECHR as the European Court of Human Rights has found in similar cases of Conscientious Objectors in Turkey²⁶ and equivalent Article 14(1) of ICCPR).

10. Trials in absentia²⁷ violate the right to a fair trial, to be tried in one’s presence (Article 14.3 (d) of ICCPR).

11. Restrictive definition of conscientious objection (see also the part about judgements of the Council of State) arbitrary refusal of recognition and automatically disqualifying conditions²⁸ (e.g. petition for firearms license, participation in shooting sport, hunting or similar activities, sentence for a crime related to use of guns, ammunition or illegal violence or even merely a prosecution for such crime (which is in violation of the right to the presumption of innocence,²⁹ Article 14.2 of ICCPR)), contrary to UN standards.³⁰

12. Possible revocation of the conscientious objector status for several reasons, including breach of the above disqualifying conditions or a disciplinary offence, contrary to the recommendations of the Ombudsman.³¹

13. Strict time-limits for applications for conscientious objector status, no provision for those who developed conscientious objection after starting military service or for the professional soldiers, in breach of UN³² and European³³ standards.

14. Lack of adequate information on the possibility of applying for conscientious objector status (no information in the registration form or in the call-up papers), contrary to UN³⁴ and European³⁵ standards.

Previous UPR recommendations

Second Cycle

15. In the 2^nd cycle of UPR, Greece received two recommendations about conscientious objectors to military service,³⁶ and did not accept either of them:³⁷

• “Review the current legislation with a view to recognizing an alternative to military service, which is accessible to all conscientious objectors and is not punitive or discriminatory (Uruguay)”.

• “Consider changes in legislation and practice in order to ensure that individuals who express conscientious objection to compulsory military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, disability, and/or religion do not face harassment or prosecution, and that they have the opportunity to perform civilian service of equal length to the one of military service (Slovenia)”.

Third Cycle

16. In the 3rd Cycle, Greece received two relevant recommendations:

• “Revise its national legislation with a view to recognizing the right to conscientious objection to military service, envisaging an alternative service to military service to which all conscientious objectors have access to and that is not punitive or discriminatory in its nature, cost or duration (Panama)”³⁸.

This recommendation was “accepted”³⁹ but not only the legislation was not improved, but it has been rather deteriorated (see relevant part below).

• “Consider amending legislation in order for conscientious objectors to be able to perform alternative civilian service in their place of residence (Croatia)”⁴⁰.

The recommendation was not accepted by Greece.⁴¹

17. The State under review claimed that: “as enlisted personnel serves outside their place of habitual residence, so is the case with conscientious objectors, meaning they are asked to perform their alternative service outside their place of habitual residence being able, in all cases, to request a transfer after five months of alternative service”.⁴²

18. The response of the State under review is unclear and potentially misleading. The Greek authorities state that conscientious objectors are “able, in all cases, to request a transfer after five months of alternative service”. First, being able to request a transfer does not necessarily mean that the transfer will be granted. Furthermore, this response is referring to transfers in general, but it does not specify whether a transfer to the place of residence or at least a place inside the broader region of residence would be permitted. Most importantly, EBCO has proof that such requests of conscientious objectors to be transferred to their place of residence are rejected, with the (Deputy) Minister of National Defence explicitly stating that this is “because, according to article 61 para. 1 of the law 3421/2005 (Government Gazette vol. A΄ 302),⁴³ the alternative service is fulfilled outside the region of residence of those interested”.⁴⁴

19. Furthermore, the allegations that “enlisted personnel serves outside their place of habitual residence” do not appear to be completely accurate. The State under review has not provided proof that a provision in law, equivalent to that for conscientious objectors, explicitly prohibits conscripts to serve any part of their military service at a place inside their entire region of residence. Or that there is a provision in law which prohibits conscripts to be transferred, after some period of time, to any place inside their entire region of residence.⁴⁵

Main developments during the 4^th Cycle

Human Rights Committee finds multiple violations of ICCPR in longstanding individual case of conscientious objector

20. In a decision which was taken in 2021 but was in essence published after the conclusion of the 3^rd cycle, the Human Rights Committee found multiple violations of ICCPR in a longstanding individual case of a conscientious objector to military service from Greece.⁴⁶

21. Lazaros Petromelidis had refused on ideological grounds to enlist for military service in 1992, when there was no provision for alternative service in Greece. Subsequently he was prosecuted for insubordination, he was prohibited from exiting the country and an arrest warrant was issued. In 1998, after the entry in force of the first law on alternative service, his first application was rejected, and he was officially recognized as a conscientious objector only after his first arrest. However, he was initially required to perform 39 months of alternative service, while as a conscript of the same age and family status he could serve only 4 months of military service and buy out another 8. After his failure to report for such a punitive and discriminatory alternative service, his conscientious objector status was revoked, and a series of repeated call-ups for military service, arrests and sentences by military courts begun.

22. Overall, from 1992 until 2014, he has been sentenced for five different periods of insubordination (merged in three cases before military courts), has been deprived of his liberty at least four times (87 days in total), has paid two financial penalties instead of imprisonment (corresponding to four sentences) and has faced multiple violations of his human rights, including the right to leave his country.

23. The Committee found violations of the articles 9(1), 12(2), 14(7), and 18(1) of ICCPR and asked Greece to take necessary measures addressing these violations.

Follow-up reveals failure to implement the Views of the Human Rights Committee

24. In 2024, the Committee examined⁴⁷ to which extent Greece has implemented its Views in the Petromelidis v. Greece case.

25. As to all issues concerning Mr. Petromelidis –expunging criminal records, reimbursement of sums paid as fines (i.e., financial penalties instead of imprisonment), adequate compensation– the Committee reasonably rated the response of Greece, which did not take any action, with C (not satisfactory).

26. However, as to the broader issues of non-repetition (“take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future”) and review of the legislation, the Committee rated Greece’s response with B (partially satisfactory - The State party has taken steps towards the implementation of the recommendation, but additional information or action remains necessary). This assessment is flawed. Although there were legislative improvements for conscientious objectors in 2019, those were insufficient, subsequently partially reversed by the next government, and in any case enacted before 2021 when the Committee issued its Views in the case.

Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations

27. In its Concluding Observations concerning the 3rd periodic report of Greece, the Human Rights Committee reiterated its concerns and recommendations about conscientious objectors to military service:

“28. 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).⁴⁸

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.”⁴⁹

28. Notably, in addition to articles 14 and 18 of ICCPR cited in the concluding observations of 2015, the Committee, this time, cited article 26 concerning discrimination.

29. A question about the Concluding Observations and their implementation was submitted to the Greek Parliament, to which the Ministry of Defence replied, inter alia, that “the institution of alternative service is in line with European law, as well as international law and international covenants”.⁵⁰

Double-edged judgements of the Council of State

30. During the 4^th Cycle, the Council of State, Greece’s Supreme Administrative court, issued a number of important judgements concerning conscientious objectors to military service. The judgements contain both positive and negative elements.

31. The first judgement⁵¹ concerned the issue of the length of alternative service and is quite negative. The Council of State, by majority of 4 to 3, rejected an appeal against a joint ministerial decision which in 2019 increased the length of alternative service.

• Firstly, the court found that the legislative provision of that time (which would permit the length of alternative service to potentially be double the length of military service) is “constitutionally tolerable”.

• The court also found that the contested ministerial decision which increased the length of alternative service was lawful and that the actual length of alternative service has not become punitive, despite the fact that the ministerial decision had reinstated a length of (full) alternative service which was 1.67 times the length of the (full) military service, which is punitive and discriminatory by all international standards and had raised the concerns of the Human Rights Committee in 2015.⁵²

• The majority of the Council of State found that it is not necessary for the administration to provide the reason for such decision to increase the length of alternative service. Nevertheless, the court itself provided its own reasons as for why the length of alternative service can be greater than the length of military service. Interestingly, the court found, inter alia, that a greater length of alternative service can be used to verify the sincerity of conscientious objection. However, this contradicts the repeated jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee that testing the sincerity of an individual's convictions does not satisfy the requirement that the difference in treatment (i.e., the difference of length between the alternative and the military service) is based on reasonable and objective criteria.⁵³

32. Three other judgements⁵⁴ concerned appeals against rejection of applications for CO status by the Minister of National Defence, following recommendations by the Special Committee examining applications. These judgements have positive, negative, and double-edged aspects.

33. As for the positive aspects:

• In an important shift to its previous jurisprudence, the Council of State ruled that: a) it is not necessary for the conscientious objection to derive from affiliation to a specific religious or other system, or from a specific ideology, b) it is not necessary to be combined with relevant activity or specific actions.

• The court pointed out that the fact that some of the applicants (raised in Jehovah’s Witnesses families without becoming themselves) stated that they were not Jehovah’s Witnesses, despite being easier to be granted CO status if you are, could also be perceived as evidence of sincerity. This could facilitate, in the future, the recognition of applicants from this specific group.

• In all 3 cases the Court annulled the rejection of applications.

34. As for the negative aspects:

• The Council of State explicitly rejected as unfounded all the structural arguments, concerning independence and impartiality, against the current procedure for granting CO status. More specifically, it found that the participation of a military officer in the 5-membered Special Committee examining the applications poses no problem as for the independence of such committee. It further found that the special roles of such military officer, being both the rapporteur as well the secretary of the committee, also does not pose a problem, considering them not of decisive importance. It also noted the role of the committee to make only a recommendation – even though it was the composition of the committee which was crucial in the Papavasilakis v. Greece case at the ECtHR.⁵⁵

• Similarly, the court found that the Minister of National Defence, who takes the decision, does not participate in the procedure as a “military” person but rather as a member of the government responsible for the execution of this sector of the governmental policy which is exercised according to the Constitution and the law, including the “protective” provisions for conscientious objectors, which the Minister, by duty, needs to embrace and implement. Therefore, the court concluded that there is no problem of independence and impartiality. The above rulings of the Council of State clearly contradict various international human rights standards, including the recommendations of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe,⁵⁶ the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, to “consider placing the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status under the full control of civilian authorities”,⁵⁷ echoed by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief,⁵⁸ and the observations and recommendations of OHCHR.⁵⁹

• The Council of State appears to introduce an extremely limited concept of conscientious objection which requires the objector to detest with “moral intensity and seriousness any form of violence without exception”. This is a requirement which is not even explicitly mentioned in the Greek legislation (some requirements related to violence, which are anyway rejected, in part or in whole, by the OHCHR⁶⁰ or organisations such as Amnesty International,⁶¹ are only referring to the use of guns, ammunition and illegal violence). Furthermore, such concept of conscientious objection limited only to absolute non-violence clearly contradicts international standards about selective conscientious objection.⁶²

35. Finally, the concept introduced in all four judgements, that the greater length of alternative service, in comparison to that of military service, constitutes evidence of sincerity, is double-edged. On the one hand, it is a strong argument that can be used by applicants, and it is expected to facilitate granting of conscientious objector status. But on the other hand, not only it contradicts the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, as explained above, but it is expected to undermine the longstanding efforts of conscientious objectors to address discrimination and to achieve an alternative civilian service of equal length to that of military service.

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

36. On 30 June 2024, EBCO submitted a collective complaint to the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR).⁶³ The complaint concerns violations of social and economic rights of conscientious objectors to military service, performing the alternative 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 service are not provided with adequate resources (compensation below the poverty threshold) 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) and in certain cases with 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.

37. In January 2026, the complaint was unanimously declared admissible in its entirety⁶⁴ and is pending on the merits.

International organisations express serious concerns about composition of the Special Committee examining applications

38. In May 2025, four international organisations, Connection e.V., CPTI, EBCO and WRI, after noting Greece’s failure to implement the recommendation of the Human Rights Committee that it “should also consider placing the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status under the full control of civilian authorities", further expressed “extreme disquiet at the revision of Special Committee’s membership in December 2024, which calls further into question the independence and impartiality of the Committee, rendering suspect any rejections which it issues.” The four organisations highlighted that (a) a recently retired military officer was appointed as one of the “civilian” members of the Special Committee, (b) the Chair of the Special Committee before her first appointment as regular Chair she had represented the Ministry of Defence in a legal case against a conscientious objector before the Council of State, the supreme administrative court (which found for the objector)”.⁶⁵

Regressions in legislation

39. In January 2026, Law 5265/2026 was enacted which replaces a wide range of military legislation. Most of the provisions about conscientious objectors remain unchanged, (which means no progress and compliance with the Human Rights Committee recommendations⁶⁶), but there is also some deterioration.⁶⁷

Increase in buy out amount exacerbates discrimination against conscientious objectors

40. Greek legislation provides the opportunity to both conscripts and conscientious objectors to military service, after a certain age, to serve only a part of the military or alternative service (a minimum of 20 days) and buy out the rest.

41. This is discriminatory for people of lower income, but it also results in discrimination against conscientious objectors. As the cost for a month of alternative service is equal to the cost for a month of military service and conscientious objectors are required to buy out months of alternative service, which is usually 3 months longer, they were previously required to pay (up to) 3 x €810 = €2,430 more than conscripts buying out military service. Therefore, conscientious objectors have been required to pay a far greater amount of money for buying out the same obligation. Such discrimination had been previously highlighted by the Ombudsman,⁶⁸ the GNCHR,⁶⁹ Amnesty International⁷⁰ and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.⁷¹

42. However, instead of addressing such discrimination, the new legislation further exacerbates it. It provides for a significant increase of the amount of money required to buy out the rest of (both military or alternative) service (after serving a minimum of 20 days) for those above 40 years of age (previously it was 33 years) from €810 to €1500 per month of service.⁷² Therefore, according to the new law, from 2031, conscientious objectors will be required to pay (up to) 3 x €1500 = €4,500 more than conscripts, for buying out the same obligation.

Limitation on administrative appeal deferments for CO applications

43. The provision stipulating that in case of administrative appeal of an applicant against the rejection of their application for CO status, a deferment is necessarily granted (until the decision on the administrative appeal is issued), was amended and such deferment now can only be granted once.⁷³

Mandatory disclosure of CO status in certificates of military status

44. Concerning the certificate of military status, despite a previous decision of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority⁷⁴, which was highlighted by the Ombudsman⁷⁵ and even the Scientific Service of the Greek Parliament,⁷⁶ the new law provides that the certificate will indicate that someone has served alternative service,⁷⁷ i.e., that they are a conscientious objector, thus rendering them vulnerable to discrimination, especially in terms of employment.

Removal of protections from (repeated) prosecutions of conscientious objectors

45. A previous provision⁷⁸ stipulating that those convicted for refusing military service after serving a prison term equal to, or greater than, the duration of alternative service are exempted from further call-ups for military service was abolished.⁷⁹ This is a reform completely opposite to the recommendations to stop repeated prosecutions and punishment of conscientious objectors in violation of the ne bis in idem principle, that went ahead despite the intervention of the GNCHR.⁸⁰

46. Another provision for cessation of prosecutions, expungement of criminal records and lifting legal repercussions for those declared insubordinate who subsequently transition to an exemption status (e.g. due to disability, as fathers of three or more children) was similarly abolished.⁸¹

47. In general, the new stricter provisions, inter alia, for those declared insubordinate, those residing abroad, medical exemptions on psychiatric grounds etc., could indirectly affect many conscientious objectors to military service.

Prohibition of second application incorporated in the legislation

48. A provision which essentially prohibits a second similar application for conscientious objector status has been incorporated in the new legislation.⁸² It is equivalent to a provision which was previously included in a decision of the Minister of National Defence,⁸³ but had been found not valid by the Council of State, Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court, on the basis that the (previous) legislation was not authorising the Minister of National Defence to issue such a provision rejecting (a priori) second applications.⁸⁴ Therefore, the inclusion in the main legislation possibly reflects an attempt to circumvent the decisions of the Council of State, and “legitimise” the rejection of second applications by the recruiting authorities.

Other changes

49. Registration for those liable for military service is, in essence, moved to 17 years of age (previously 18), i.e. minors will be registered.⁸⁵

50. Voluntary military service for women is introduced,⁸⁶ but without possibility for conscientious objection.

51. Reserve duties, previously until 45 years of age, are now extended to 60 years of age.⁸⁷

Alarming Conscientious Objector status statistics

52. According to official data, revealed in 2022, in 2021 the percentage of recognition for conscientious objectors who invoke ideological, i.e. non-religious, grounds had fallen to 0%, while in 2018 the percentage had reached 93%.⁸⁸

53. The percentage of recognition of conscientious objectors on ideological grounds remains low at 33% in 2022,⁸⁹ 25% in 2023,⁹⁰ 50% in 2024,⁹¹ and 50% in 2025.⁹²

Individual cases

The case of Zacharias Piazas

54. Zacharias Piazas, an officially recognised conscientious objector to military service, by decision of the Greek Minister of National Defence, initiated the (punitive and discriminatory) alternative service, in December 2025, in an institution for chronic medical conditions in Thessaloniki, away from the region of his permanent residence, but soon found himself forced to temporarily depart because of the harsh financial conditions. The institution did not provide him with housing or the minimum resources to cover his basic living needs.

Unlawful call up for military service and revocation of CO status

55. Despite his written explanation to the military authorities about his inability to continue under such conditions, on the 10^th of February 2026, while still having conscientious objector (CO) status, he was unlawfully, even in terms of domestic legislation, called up for military service to be enlisted on the 27^th of February 2026.

56. On the 12^th of February, the military authorities revoked his CO status. The revocation of CO status on any “disciplinary” grounds, (which the Greek Ombudsman has criticised already since 1999⁹³) and especially because of the inability to continue a clearly punitive and discriminatory alternative service, constitute violations of international treaties that Greece has ratified (e.g. ICCPR, ECHR) and which, according to the Greek constitution, prevail over any domestic legislation.

Court orders suspension of obligation for military service

57. Mr. Piazas has lodged a number of applications with the Council of State, Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court, for the annulment of the decisions of the authorities and until this is decided, for their suspension. On the 27^th of February 2026, the day he was scheduled to report for military service, the Council of State issued a provisional order of suspension of the execution of the appealed decisions, as far as they concern the obligation to report for military service.

Military authorities defy court orders and insist on calling up for military service

58. Despite that, on the 6^th of March 2026, the military authorities informed Mr. Piazas that they revoke the [manifestly unlawful] call up for military service [of the 10^th of February] for enlistment on the 27^th of February, but he is now scheduled to report for military service in May 2026, and that he will receive a new call up for military service.

59. It appears that the military authorities in Greece try to circumvent the provisional order of suspension issued by the Council of State, while they insist on the revocation of Mr. Piazas’ CO status and on calling him for military service. This constitutes an alarming move of defiance towards the spirit of the orders of the Supreme Administrative Court by the military authorities in Greece. It also constitutes a form of persecution of a recognised conscientious objector.

60. Four international organisations, Connection e.V., EBCO, IFOR and WRI, have urged the Greek authorities to halt such persecution, cease calling up Zacharias Piazas, a recognised conscientious objector, for military service, immediately annul the unlawful revocation of his CO status, and provide him and all conscientious objectors in Greece with an alternative civilian service which is not punitive and discriminatory in terms of its nature, cost or duration, according to the relevant concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee.⁹⁴

Cases of sentencing of total objectors

61. In its annual report 2022/2023, EBCO reported that a total objector had been sentenced for insubordination to a suspended sentence of 6-month imprisonment. This was his second conviction for insubordination, which constitutes a further violation, i.e., of the ne bis in idem principle.⁹⁵

62. According to information from his lawyer, in January 2026 another total objector, who had been previously arrested, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 16 months of imprisonment in total. He had been charged twice for insubordination, corresponding to two periods of insubordination later merged in one trial, related to his same and constant refusal to perform both the military and the (punitive and discriminatory) alternative “civilian” service.

63. These cases illustrate several violations of human rights of conscientious objectors, including: violation of the right to conscientious objection to military service, for refusing to perform a punitive and discriminatory alternative “civilian” service; trials of conscientious objectors, including total objectors, by Greek military courts, in violation of the right to fair trial; repeated trials and punishment for the same “offence” in violation of the ne bis in idem principle; and even arrests of conscientious objectors, including total objectors, in violation of the right to liberty.

Case of extension of the already punitive and discriminatory alternative service as punishment

64. In September 2024, the request of a conscientious objector for unpaid leave due to a personal financial emergency during his alternative service was rejected as “unlawful” even though firmly substantiated in administrative provisions for public servants which by law extend to conscientious objectors during their service. His necessary absence was subsequently punished in October 2024 by the Recruitment Agency of Attica with additional service of double the time of absence, by invoking provisions for “unjustified absences” during the alternative service.⁹⁶

Suggested recommendations

65. EBCO and AGCO suggest the following recommendations:

• Promptly and fully implement the Views of the Human Rights Committee in the Petromelidis v Greece case, and its Concluding Observations concerning conscientious objectors to military service.

• Bring legislation and practice about conscientious objectors to military service in line with the European and international standards and recommendations.

• Provide a genuinely civilian alternative service for conscientious objectors under civilian supervision, of equal length to the one of military service and which can be performed in the place of residence.

• Cease pending prosecutions and annul all sentences and fines imposed until today to conscientious objectors to military service (including total objectors) in violation of international law, reimburse the amounts paid and provide adequate compensations.

References

1. Law 5265/2026, art. 229, para. 2(d).↩︎

2. Joint ministerial decision 2/24407/0022/09-06-2005 (Government Gazette Vol. Β. 858/23-6-2005) titled “Definition of monthly compensation of conscientious objectors”.↩︎

3. Joint Ministerial Decision 8934/2026 (Government Gazette vol. B 1759/27-3-2026).↩︎

4. Hellenic Statistical Authority, Risk of poverty or social exclusion – 2024 Survey on Income and Living Conditions (Income reference period: 2023), 16 April 2025, Table 6, p. 10: https://www.statistics.gr/documents/20181/18328872/Risk+of+Poverty+%28+2024+%29.pdf/042d41d4-d995-48e4-5bf3-50d7d320acef?t=1744801309721↩︎

5. See for example in Athanasia Akrivou, “Greece Unveils New Measures to Address Housing Crisis”, tovima.com, 26 January 2026. https://www.tovima.com/finance/greece-unveils-new-measures-to-address-housing-crisis/↩︎

6. Law 5265/2026, art. 176.↩︎

7. Law 5265/2026, art. 246.↩︎

8. Law 5265/2026, art. 226, para. 1.↩︎

9. Law 5265/2026, art. 246.↩︎

10. Law 5265/2026, art. 226, para. 3.↩︎

11. E.g. UN Human Rights Committee, (CCPR/C/LTU/CO/4), 29 August 2018, paras. 25-26. https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/LTU/CO/4

    See also: UN Human Rights Committee, Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/101/D/1642-1741/2007, Communication No. 1642-1741/2007), 27 April 2011, para. 7.3.

    https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/101/D/1642-1741/2007

    See all subsequent jurisprudence on conscientious objectors, including in

    UN Human Rights Committee, Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3065/2017, (CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017), 24 August 2022, para. 9.5. (Hereinafter, Petromelidis v. Greece). https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017

    UN Human Rights Committee, (CCPR/C/ARM/CO/2), 31 August 2012, para. 25. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/ARM/CO/2↩︎

12. E.g. ECtHR, Case of Adyan and others v. Armenia, (Application no. 75604/11), 12 October 2017, paras. 68-69. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-177429

    ECtHR, Teliatnikov v. Lithuania, (Application no. 51914/19), 7 June 2022, paras. 107-108. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-217607

    See also: ECtHR, Rutkauskas v. Lithuania, (Application no. 15816/20), 26 August 2025. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-244592

    OSCE, ODIHR, Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, Chapter 10 Conscientious Objection to Military Conscription and Service, 4. Best Practices and Recommendations, p. 86 [point 7]. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/0/c/31393.pdf

    European Parliament, Resolution on conscientious objection in the Member States of the Community, (Α3-0411/93), 19 January 1994, para. 9, as it has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 44, 14 February 1994, page 105.

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOC_1994_044_R_0075_01&from=EN↩︎

13. [in Greek] Συνήγορος του Πολίτη, Ειδική Έκθεση «Ο θεσμός της εναλλακτικής πολιτικής-κοινωνικής υπηρεσίας. Προτάσεις αναμόρφωσης.» (1999), κεφ. 1. «Η νέα εποπτεύουσα αρχή»

    https://www.synigoros.gr/el/category/eidikes-ek8eseis/post/eidikh-ek8esh-or-o-8esmos-ths-enallaktikhs-politikhs-koinwnikhs-yphresias-protaseis-anamorfwshs↩︎

14. Law 5265/2026, art. 228.↩︎

15. E.g. OHCHR, (A/HRC/41/23), 24 May 2019, para. 60(g). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/23

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/50/43), 11 May 2022, para. 57(i). http://undocs.org/A/HRC/50/43

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/56/30), 23 April 2024, para. 55(b). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/56/30↩︎

16. Law 5265/2026, article 218, para. 5.↩︎

17. ECtHR, Papavasilakis v. Greece, Application no. 66899/14, Judgement of 15 September 2016, para. 21. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-166850↩︎

18. Military Penal Code, Article 32 (a). Available in Greek at: https://www.stratologia.gr/el/node/931↩︎

19. Law 5265/2026, articles 220-221.↩︎

20. Petromelidis v. Greece, CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017, 24 August 2022, paras. 9.8, 10. https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017↩︎

21. Ibid., paras. 9.9, 10.↩︎

22. Ibid., paras. 9.6, 10.↩︎

23. See UN Human Rights Committee’s recent jurisprudence in Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3660/2019, (CCPR/C/143/D/3660/2019), 10 July 2025, especially paras. 7.7-7.8. https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/143/D/3660/2019↩︎

24. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Greece, (CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3), 28 November 2024, para. 28 citing article 26 of ICCPR. https://docs.un.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3

    See also previously in Petromelidis v. Greece, CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017, 24 August 2022, Annex II

    Individual opinion of Committee member Hélène Tigroudja (partly dissenting) https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017↩︎

25. Petromelidis v. Greece, CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017, 24 August 2022, paras. 9.11, 10. https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017

    UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Greece, 3

    December 2015, CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2, paras. 37-38. https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2

    See also: UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Greece, (CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3), 28 November 2024, para. 28 citing article 14 of ICCPR and referring to the previous concluding observations. https://docs.un.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3↩︎

26. E.g. ECtHR, Case of Erçep v. Turkey (Application No. 43965/04), 22 November 2011.

    Available in French at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-107532

    ECtHR, Case of Feti Demirtaş v. Turkey (Application No. 5260/07), 17 January 2011.

    Available in French at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-108617

    ECtHR, Case of Savda v Turkey (Application No. 42730/05), 12 June 2012.

    Available in French at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-111414

    ECtHR, Case of Buldu and others v. Turkey (Application No. 14017/08), 3 June 2014.

    Available in French at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-144352↩︎

27. E.g. the case of Ioannis (Yiannis) Gklarnetatzis. See in EBCO, Annual Report 2015, p. 29.

    https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/attachments/2015_EBCO_REPORT.pdf↩︎

28. Law 5265/2026, art. 225, para. 3.↩︎

29. OHCHR, (A/HRC/41/23), 24 May 2019, paras. 46-47. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/23↩︎

30. OHCHR, (A/HRC/50/43), 11 May 2022, para. 57(j). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/50/43

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/41/23), 24 May 2019, para. 60(h). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/23

    See also: UN OHCHR, Conscientious Objection to Military Service, New York and Geneva, 2012. p. 54. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/ConscientiousObjection_en.pdf↩︎

31. [in Greek] Συνήγορος του Πολίτη, Ειδική Έκθεση «Ο θεσμός της εναλλακτικής πολιτικής-κοινωνικής υπηρεσίας. Προτάσεις αναμόρφωσης.» (1999), κεφ. 6. «Η αντικατάσταση της έκπτωσης από αυτοτελές σύστημα κυρώσεων»

    https://www.synigoros.gr/el/category/eidikes-ek8eseis/post/eidikh-ek8esh-or-o-8esmos-ths-enallaktikhs-politikhs-koinwnikhs-yphresias-protaseis-anamorfwshs↩︎

32. UN Human Rights Committee, (CCPR/C/79/Add.61), 3 April 1996, paras. 15 and 20. http://undocs.org/CCPR/C/79/Add.61

    CCPR/C/LVA/CO/4, 3 September 2025, paras. 37-38(b). https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/LVA/CO/4

    CCPR/C/MDA/CO/4, 2 April 2026, paras. 39-40. https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/MDA/CO/4

    See also: CCPR/C/BRB/QPR/4, 22 April 2025, para. 21(b). https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/BRB/QPR/4

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/50/43), 11 May 2022, para. 57(d), (g). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/50/43

    See also: OHCHR, (A/HRC/41/23), 24 May 2019, para. 60(c), (f). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/23

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/35/4), 1 May 2017, para. 63. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/35/4

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/23/22), 3 June 2013, para. 70. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/23/22

    UN OHCHR, Conscientious Objection to Military Service, New York and Geneva, 2012. See relevant chapter “Conscientious objection for persons serving in the armed forces”, pp. 25-26.

    https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/ConscientiousObjection_en.pdf

    See also: “States should be encouraged to end time limits for individuals to apply for conscientious objector status” in E/CN.4/2006/51, 27 February 2006, para. 61. And para. 62 for professional soldiers. https://undocs.org/E/CN.4/2006/51

    UN Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1993/84, para. 2. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unchr/1993/en/11724

    Resolution 1995/83, para. 2. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unchr/1995/en/8151

    See also the phrase “aware that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections” in the preamble in the previous resolutions, as well as in: Resolution 1998/77. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unchr/1998/en/8561

    UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 24/17 (A/HRC/RES/24/17), 8 October 2013, para. 5. http://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/24/17↩︎

33. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 4 “Human Rights of members of the armed forces”, paras. 41-46. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/coeministers/2010/ru/88943

    See also previously in: Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R(87)8, 9 April 1987, para. 8. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/coeministers/1987/en/88968

    Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1518 (2001), paras. 5.1, 5.2.

    https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=16909&lang=en

    OSCE, ODIHR, Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, Chapter 10 Conscientious Objection to Military Conscription and Service, 4. Best Practices and Recommendations, p. 85 [second point].

    https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/0/c/31393.pdf

    European Parliament, Resolution on respect for human rights in the European Community (annual report of the European Parliament), (Α3-0025/93) [known as the De Gucht Resolution], 11 March 1993, as it has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 115, on 26 of April 1993, para. 49 (p. 183).

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOC_1993_115_R_0139_01&from=EN

    See also the term “at any time” in: European Parliament, Resolution on conscientious objection and alternative service, (Α3-15/89), [known as Schmidbauer Resolution], 13 October 1989, as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C291, 20 November 1989, para. 1 (p. 124). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOC_1989_291_R_0113_01&from=EN↩︎

34. OHCHR, (A/HRC/50/43), 11 May 2022, para. 57(b). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/50/43

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/41/23), 24 May 2019, para. 60(a). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/23

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/35/4), 1 May 2017, para. 63. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/35/4

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/23/22), 3 June 2013, para. 70. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/23/22

    UN Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1993/84, para. 8. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unchr/1993/en/11724

    Resolution 1995/83, para. 8. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unchr/1995/en/8151

    Resolution 1998/77, para. 8. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unchr/1998/en/8561

    UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 24/17 (A/HRC/RES/24/17), 8 October 2013, para. 15. http://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/24/17↩︎

35. Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1518 (2001), para. 5.3.

    https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=16909&lang=en

    Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R(87)8, 9 April1987, para. 3. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/coeministers/1987/en/88968

    See also: Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 4 “Human Rights of members of the armed forces”, para. 46.

    https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/coeministers/2010/ru/88943

    OSCE, ODIHR, Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, Chapter 10 Conscientious Objection to Military Conscription and Service, 4. Best Practices and Recommendations, p. 85 [first point].

    https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/0/c/31393.pdf

    European Parliament, Resolution on conscientious objection and alternative service, (Α3-15/89), [known as Schmidbauer Resolution], 13 October 1989, as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C291, 20 November 1989, para. 2 (p. 124). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOC_1989_291_R_0113_01&from=EN

    European Parliament, Resolution on respect for human rights in the European Community (annual report of the European Parliament), (Α3-0025/93) [known as the De Gucht Resolution], 11 March 1993, as it has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 115, on 26 of April 1993, para. 49 (p. 183).

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOC_1993_115_R_0139_01&from=EN↩︎

36. UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Greece, (A/HRC/33/7), 8 July 2016, recommendations 136.15 (Uruguay), 136.16 (Slovenia). https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/33/7↩︎

37. UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Greece, Addendum, Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review, (A/HRC/33/7/Add.1), 2 September 2016, p. 3. https://docs.un.org/A/HRC/33/7/Add.1↩︎

38. UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Greece, (A/HRC/49/5), 6 January 2022, recommendation 130.76 (Panama). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/49/5↩︎

39. UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Greece, Addendum, Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review, (A/HRC/49/5/Add.1), 16 December 2021, para. 3 which includes recommendation 130.76. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/49/5/Add.1↩︎

40. UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Greece, (A/HRC/49/5), 6 January 2022, recommendation 130.88 (Croatia). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/49/5↩︎

41. UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Greece, Addendum, Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review, (A/HRC/49/5/Add.1), 16 December 2021, paras. 6 and 7(c). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/49/5/Add.1↩︎

42. Ibid, para. 7(c).↩︎

43. The same provision in the current legislation can be found in Law 5265/2026, art. 227, para. 1.↩︎

44. Decision of the Deputy Minister of National Defence, Alkiviadis Stefanis, Φ. 429.39/121/225258 Σ.5724, 26 August 2019. (Not published, copy available).↩︎

45. ECSR, Collective Complaint No. 242/2024 European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) v. Greece, registered on 1 July 2024, paras. 69-70.

    https://rm.coe.int/cc242casedoc1-en/1680b0dbd6↩︎

46. UN Human Rights Committee, Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3065/2017, (CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017), 24 August 2022. https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/132/D/3065/2017↩︎

47. UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/142/2), 1 April 2025, pp. 11-14. https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/142/2↩︎

48. [Note in the original] CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2, para. 37, and CCPR/CO/83/GRC, para. 15.↩︎

49. 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://docs.un.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3↩︎

50. Ministry of Defence, Question 2352/19-12-2024 of the Hellenic Parliament, 8 February 2025. Available in Greek at: https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/67715b2c-ec81-4f0c-ad6a-476a34d732bd/12844974.pdf↩︎

51. Council of State, Judgement 2262/2023.↩︎

52. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Greece, 3

    December 2015, CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2, paras. 37-38. Available at https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2↩︎

53. Human Rights Committee, Views on Communication No 666/1995, Frédéric Foin v. France,

    (CCPR/C/67/D/666/1995), 9 November 1999, para. 10.3. https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/67/D/666/1995

    Human Rights Committee, Views on Communications No. 690/1996 & 691/1996, Marc Venier and Paul Nicolas v. France, (CCPR/C/69/D/690/1996 & 691/1996), para. 10.4. Available at: https://juris.ohchr.org/casedetails/885/en-US↩︎

54. Council of State, Judgements 2263/2023, 2264/2023, 14/2026.↩︎

55. ECtHR, Papavasilakis v. Greece, Application no. 66899/14, Judgement of 15 September 2016. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-166850↩︎

56. Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the Hellenic Republic, 2-5 June 2002, CommDH(2002)5, para. 18.

    https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806db86f↩︎

57. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Greece,

    (CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2), 3 December 2015, paras. 37-38. https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2

    UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Greece, (CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3), 28 November 2024, paras. 28-29. https://docs.un.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3↩︎

58. UN Economic and Social Council, Commission on human rights, Civil and political rights, including the question of religious intolerance, Addendum, Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received, E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1, 27 March 2006, para. 139. Available at:

    https://undocs.org/E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1

    UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Communication GRC 3/2016, 31 October 2016, p. 6. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=22834

    UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Communication GRC 3/2019, 11 July 2019, p. 5. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24700↩︎

59. OHCHR, (A/HRC/41/23), 24 May 2019, paras. 7, 36 (note 47), 38 (note 49), and especially 41. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/23↩︎

60. OHCHR, (A/HRC/41/23), 24 May 2019, paras. 46-47. Available at: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/23↩︎

61. Amnesty International, Greece: Application procedures for obtaining the status of conscientious objectors to military service in accordance with human rights standards, 17 December 2018, Index Number: EUR 25/9575/2018, Part B. Formal requirements and conditions resulting in disqualification. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur25/9575/2018/en/↩︎

62. E.g. UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 10, HCR/GIP/13/10/Corr. 1, 12 November 2014, p. 1, para. 3.

    https://www.unhcr.org/publications/legal/529efd2e9/guidelines-international-protection-10-claims-refugee-status-related-military.html

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/35/4), 1 May 2017, paras. 15, 63.

    https://www.undocs.org/A/HRC/35/4

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/41/23), 24 May 2019, paras. 26, 47, 60(d). https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/23

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/50/43), 11 May 2022, paras. 12, 17(d), 57(e). http://undocs.org/A/HRC/50/43

    OHCHR, (A/HRC/56/30), 23 April 2024, para. 20. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/56/30↩︎

63. ECSR, Collective Complaint No. 242/2024 European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) v. Greece, registered on 1 July 2024.

    https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-social-charter/-/no.-242/2024-european-bureau-for-conscientious-objection-ebco-v.-greece

    https://rm.coe.int/cc242casedoc1-en/1680b0dbd6↩︎

64. ECSR, Decision on admissibility of the Complaint No. 242/2024, 20 January 2026. https://hudoc.esc.coe.int/?i=cc-242-2024-dadmiss-en↩︎

65. Connection e.V., Conscience and Peace Tax International, European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, War Resisters’ International, “Joint Statement concerning the body examining applications for conscientious objector status in Greece”, 21 May 2025.

    https://ebco-beoc.org/press-release/2025-05-21-joint-statement-examination-conscientious-objectors-greece↩︎

66. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Greece, (CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3), 28 November 2024, paras. 28-29. https://docs.un.org/CCPR/C/GRC/CO/3↩︎

67. This part is largely based on the submission of the Association of Greek Conscientious Objectors (AGCO) to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the quadrennial analytical report on conscientious objection to military service. https://antirrisies.gr/2026-01-15-ypomnima-tetraeti-ekthesi-ohe-antirrisi-syneidisis/↩︎

68. [in Greek] Συνήγορος του Πολίτη, «Ο Συνήγορος του Πολίτη για την άρση του προστίμου ανυποταξίας», Press Release of 2 February 2016. Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20201027144458/https://www.synigoros.gr/resources/160202-dt.pdf

    Συνήγορος του Πολίτη, Ειδική Έκθεση «Ο θεσμός της εναλλακτικής πολιτικής-κοινωνικής υπηρεσίας. Προτάσεις αναμόρφωσης.» (1999), κεφ. 2. «Η διάρκεια της Ε.Π.Κ.Υ.»

    https://www.synigoros.gr/el/category/eidikes-ek8eseis/post/eidikh-ek8esh-or-o-8esmos-ths-enallaktikhs-politikhs-koinwnikhs-yphresias-protaseis-anamorfwshs↩︎

69. Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR), Input to the OHCHR quadrennial analytical report 2022 on conscientious objection to military service, 21 March 2022, pp. 19-20.

    https://www.nchr.gr/images/English_Site/ANTIRRISIES/GNCHR_input_to_OHCHR_report_2022_on_Conscientious_Objectors.pdf

    GNCHR, Submission to the quadrennial analytical report 2017 on conscientious objection to military service of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights (February 2017), pp. 10-11.

    http://www.nchr.gr/images/pdf/apofaseis/antirisies_suneidisis/Submission%20of%20the%20GNCHR%20to%20the%20quadrennial%20analytical%20report%202017.pdf

    GNCHR submission regarding the continuous violation of Article 1§2 of the European Social Charter in the case of alternative service for conscientious objectors in Greece (11.11.2016), chapter. «Multiple discriminations in the case of conscientious objectors who are above 35 years of age», p. 5-6.

    https://www.nchr.gr/images/pdf/apofaseis/ellinikes_ektheseis_en_ell_org/CoE/GNCHR_submission_ECSR_NOVEMBER.pdf#_blank↩︎

70. Amnesty International, Greece: Observations on the right to conscientious objection - “serious violations of Greece’s obligations towards conscientious objectors remain unaddressed in proposed bill despite some positive steps”, 20 March 2019, Index number: EUR 25/0088/2019, p. 3, Chapter 4. “Buying off alternative service”.

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur25/0088/2019/en/↩︎

71. UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, OL GRC 3/2019, 11 July 2019, p. 3. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24700↩︎

72. Law 5265/2026, art. 223 and art. 230.↩︎

73. Law 5265/2026, art. 228, para. 4.↩︎

74. Hellenic Data Protection Authority, Decision 3/2022, 13 January 2022, Available in Greek at: https://www.dpa.gr/sites/default/files/2022-01/3_2022%20anonym.pdf

    See also “Protection from discrimination and personal data” in War Resisters’ International’s 2022 submission to OHCHR, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/WRI-HRC50.pdf, 22 March 2022, p. 2.↩︎

75. Greek Ombudsman, Comments on the draft law, p. 6. Available in Greek at: https://www.synigoros.gr/el/category/default/post/parathrhseis-or-sxedio-nomoy-xarths-metabashs-twn-enoplwn-dynamewn-sth-nea-epoxh↩︎

76. Scientific Service of the Greek Parliament, Report on the draft law, p. 38, para. 26. Available in Greek at: https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/7b24652e-78eb-4807-9d68-e9a5d4576eff/13166405.pdf↩︎

77. Law 5265/2026, art. 238, paras. 3-4.↩︎

78. Law 3421/2025, art. 65, para. 1.↩︎

79. Law 5265/2026, art. 243.↩︎

80. Greek National Commission for Human Rights, Comments on the draft law, p. 11. Available in Greek at: https://nchr.gr/images/pdf/apofaseis/antirisies_suneidisis/__19122025.pdf↩︎

81. Law 5265/2026, art. 181, para. 4. Compare to Law 3421/2005, art. 13, para. 9.↩︎

82. Law 5265/2026, art. 225, para. 4.↩︎

83. Decision of the Minister of National Defence Φ.420/79/81978/Σ.300 (Government Gazette vol. Β΄ 1854/29.12.2005), article 1, para. 3.↩︎

84. E.g. Judgements of the Council of State Α3505/2014, A880/2017.↩︎

85. Law 5265/2026, art. 178, para. 1.↩︎

86. Law 5265/2026, arts. 269-277.↩︎

87. Law 5265/2026, art. 216, para. 2.↩︎

88. EBCO Annual Report 2022/23, p. 41. https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/attachments/2023-05-12-EBCO_Annual_Report_2022-23.pdf↩︎

89. Ibid.↩︎

90. EBCO Annual Report 2023/24, p. 90. https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/2024-05-15-EBCO_Annual_Report_2023-24.pdf↩︎

91. EBCO Annual Report 2024, p. 72. https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/2025-06-05-EBCO_Annual_Report_2024.pdf↩︎

92. Ministry of National Defence, “Conscientious Objectors”, (Φ.429/9/161525 Σ. 23277), 8 December 2025.↩︎

93. [in Greek] Συνήγορος του Πολίτη, Ειδική Έκθεση «Ο θεσμός της εναλλακτικής πολιτικής-κοινωνικής υπηρεσίας. Προτάσεις αναμόρφωσης.» (1999), κεφ. 6. «Η αντικατάσταση της έκπτωσης από αυτοτελές σύστημα κυρώσεων»

    https://www.synigoros.gr/el/category/eidikes-ek8eseis/post/eidikh-ek8esh-or-o-8esmos-ths-enallaktikhs-politikhs-koinwnikhs-yphresias-protaseis-anamorfwshs↩︎

94. Connection e.V., European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, International Fellowship of Reconciliation, War Resisters' International, “Greece: Military authorities defy international law and domestic court orders in the case of recognised conscientious objector Zacharias Piazas”, 12 March 2026. https://ebco-beoc.org/press-release/2026-03-13-greece-military-authorities-defy-court-orders-zacharias-piazas↩︎

95. EBCO Annual Report 2022/23, p. 43. https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/attachments/2023-05-12-EBCO_Annual_Report_2022-23.pdf↩︎

96. EBCO Annual Report 2024, p. 71. https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/2025-06-05-EBCO_Annual_Report_2024.pdf. https://ebco-beoc.org/greece/2024↩︎