GREECE Joint submission by Conscience and Peace Tax International (CPTI) and the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) to the UN Human Rights Committee 142nd session, September/October 2024

In this joint submission, Conscience and Peace Tax International and the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection provide information on the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Greece, under the Reporting Procedure of the Human Rights Committee.

(Military service, conscientious objection and related issues)

Prepared September 2024.

Submitting stakeholders: Mr. Derek Brett (Main Representative to the UN, Geneva of CPTI), Mr. Theodoros Diamantidis (Secretary of EBCO).

CPTI aims to supply information on all States with armed forces which report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) with regard to their military recruitment legislation and their recognition of the right of conscientious objection, even when there appear to be no urgent questions arising.

In association with the Child Rights International Network, CPTI also reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child on States where there appear to be issues under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and although these issues do not necessarily have implications for the ICCPR, such concerns are also reported in these submissions.

EBCO is an international non-governmental organisation dedicated to promoting, inter alia, the right to conscientious objection to preparations for, and participation in, war and any other type of military activity as a fundamental human right, on both a national and an international level, at the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other international bodies.

EBCO, together with the Association of Greek Conscientious Objection (AGCO) has regularly made submissions for the Universal Periodic Review of Greece. ¹

Summary

The principal concerns raised in this submission are:

1) Lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the Special Committee which examines applications on the basis of conscientious objection to perform alternative civilian service.

2) (Possibly stemming from 1) Discrimination between conscientious objectors on the basis of the beliefs on which the objection is based.

3) Arbitrary withdrawal of recognition as a conscientious objector.

4) Repeated prosecution of unrecognised conscientious objectors for their refusal to perform military service, contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem.

5) Trials of civilians, in particular of conscientious objectors, in military courts.

6) Discriminatory terms and conditions of alternative civilian service by comparison with military service.

7) Shortcomings in the legislation and procedures concerning conscientious objection to military service, including inadequate information given to potential conscripts and arbitrary restrictions on who may be recognised as a conscientious objector.

8) Inability of serving members of the armed forces to obtain release on the basis of conscientious objection.

9) Compensation for prosecuted conscientious objectors who had declared their conscientious objection before 1998.

10) Failure to implement the Committee’s Views in Petromelidid v Greece

Latest statistics ²

POPULATION: (November 2023, estimated)	10,498,000
proportion of males aged 15-19	2.9%
thus annually reaching recruitment age (approx):	60,888
ARMED FORCES: Active strength, November 2023	132,200
(of which conscripts)	47,400 (or 35.9%)
compared to the male population reaching recruitment age:	(conscripts 77.8%)
MILITARY EXPENDITURE: US $ equivalent, estimated 2023	$7,730m
Per capita	$748
As % of GDP	3.2%

Historical Background

The situation regarding conscientious objection to military service in Greece was set out comprehensively in its Initial Report under the ICCPR, considered in 2005.

“Greece adopted in 1997 legislation providing for service of a non-combatant or civilian character (articles 18-24 of Law 2510/1997, which entered into force on 1 January 1998).

“According to this law, anyone who invokes religious or ideological beliefs in order not to fulfil his military obligations on the grounds of conscience may be recognized as a conscientious objector in accordance with the following provisions.

“The grounds of conscience are regarded as being related to a general approach to life, based on religious, philosophical or moral beliefs to which the specific individual subscribes
and are manifested by a pattern of behavior and conduct corresponding to such beliefs. Conscientious objectors are invited to carry out either unarmed military service or alternative civilian social service.

“The qualification of a person as a conscientious objector is not possible in the following cases: (a) the person in question has provided armed service in the Greek or foreign Armed Forces or Security Corps; (b) the person in question has applied for or has been granted a permit to carry a weapon or participates in activities involving the use of weapons; or (c) the person in question has been charged with or convicted for a crime involving the use of weapons, ammunition or illicit violence.

“Those who are recognized as conscientious objectors will only be obliged to carry out unarmed service or civilian service, equal in duration to the service that they would have done had they served in an armed capacity, increased however by 12 months for those who choose to carry out unarmed service and 18 months for those who choose to perform civilian service. In 2001, an amendment was introduced to Law 2936/2001, providing for the decrease of the service of the “unarmed” service and of the “alternative civilian service” for those conscientious objectors who are liable to a reduced service. Given the policy of progressively reducing the term of service, which was completed in 2003, and in accordance with the principle of proportional equality, which justifies the longer term of the alternative service, since armed service is more unfavorable, the Ministry of National Defense has promoted a draft law for the reduction of the term of alternative service.

“The application of the relevant provisions of the law concerning conscientious objectors is subject to a decision by the Minister for National Defense, following an advisory opinion by a special committee, set up to examine the necessary prerequisites for a person to be recognized as a conscientious objector, either through the filed supporting documents, or through a personal interview, if necessary. This committee consists mainly of non-military personnel. More specifically, it consists of two University Professors, a member of the Legal Council of the State,³and two higher-ranking officers belonging to the recruit sector and to the sanitary and health inspection sector of the Greek Armed Forces respectively. One can bring an application for annulment against the decision of this Committee before the Council of State.

“In case of refusal to provide unarmed service, the consequences are the same as in the case of refusal to provide armed service, according to the relevant provisions. All those who refuse to fulfill alternative civilian social service are declared “insubordinate”, according to the relevant recruit provisions.

“The alternative civilian social service is carried out in agencies of the public sector responsible for running welfare services. The persons who perform alternative civilian social service:

(a) Will not have a military capacity and therefore will not be subject to the authority of military courts;

(b) Will be regarded only as quasi-enlisted in the Armed Forces;

(c) Will not be considered as holding a post in the public agency where they serve but will receive equal treatment with the employees of such an agency as concerns health care and other benefits provided by the administration;

(d) Will be entitled to obtain food and lodging from the agency to which they are assigned and, if the latter is unable to render all these services, a salary will be paid to them, equal to the amount granted for food, lodgings, clothing and transport of soldiers;

(e) Will be entitled to leave of absence of two days for each month of service.

“One may no longer enjoy the aforementioned right in the following cases: (a) if one ceases to fulfill the prerequisites of article 18 for the acknowledgement of the right to alternative civilian social service; (b) if one is declared “insubordinate”; (c) if one commits a disciplinary offence or a crime which may result to interruption or termination of the employment contract for any given employee of the respective public sector; (d) if one exercises trade unionist activities or participates in a strike during the alternative civilian social service; (e) if one is punished for violating the provisions regarding the issuing of leaves of absence, as these provisions are in force for the employees of the respective public sector.

“According to article 24 (2), in times of armed conflict, the implementation of the provisions regarding alternative service, may be suspended following a decision by the Minister for National Defense. In that case, those fulfilling alternative civilian social service are considered as obliged to provide unarmed military service.

“Until June 2003, 771 requests had been submitted by conscientious objectors. 758 of these were satisfied (98%). The interested persons are safeguarded against the acts or omissions of the administration, since they have the right to submit their objections, both against the decision rejecting their request to be qualified as conscientious objectors (which fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts), and against the act of the director of the Conscription Service regarding loss of the conscientious objector status(which fall within the competence of the Conscription Directorate of the Hellenic National Defense General Staff). All interested persons have direct access to the procedure for obtaining the status of a conscientious objector by applying to their Military Personnel Office. The gathering of the necessary material for the application may be realized in a reasonable time, without any time-consuming procedures.

“It is to be noted that the length of alternative service has been examined by the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) in the context of a complaint against Greece under the 1995 Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter providing for a system of collective complaints. ⁴ The ECSR considered that the additional 18 months civilian service performed by conscientious objectors in Greece, during which the persons concerned are denied the right to earn their living in an occupation freely entered upon, do not come within reasonable limits, compared to the duration of military service. It therefore considered that this additional duration, because of its excessive character, amounts to a disproportionate restriction on “the right of the worker to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon”. On 6 March 2002, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution ResChs(2002)3, in which it noted that the Greek Government had taken certain measures, including the decrease of the length of military service and had undertaken to take the matter into consideration with a view to bringing the situation into conformity with the Charter in good time.

“The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights recommended the amendment of the legislation on the alternative civilian service in order, in particular, to reduce its length. The NCHR has also made proposals on the issue of alternative service, suggesting, among others, more reasonable length.

“By virtue of a regulation dated 23.10.2001, the conscientious objectors can be transferred, in special cases, to another institution due to family, economic or social reasons, in order to accomplish their civil-social service.

“The European Court of Human Rights found that the refusal of the Executive Board of the Greek Institute of Chartered Accountants to appoint the applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness who had been convicted by a court martial for insubordination for having refused to join the Army on grounds of religious conscience, was contrary to the ECHR. ⁵ This decision highlights the problem of indirect consequences of the conviction of a conscientious objector before the entry into force of Law 2510/1997. In order to remedy this situation, and to conform with the European Court’s judgment, the Greek Parliament adopted Article 27 of Law 2915/2001, which provides for the writing off of the criminal record of all penalties which have been imposed to conscientious objectors for the military offense of insubordination, committed before the entry into force of Law 2510/1997, provided that they have served their sentence or have conditionally been released.” ⁶

The Committee chose on that occasion to focus in the List of Issues on the duration of alternative civilian service, as outlined in paragraph 282, asking “How is the longer term of service imposed on conscientious objectors to military service considered compatible with the Covenant?” ⁷ It will be noted that, as detailed in paras 289 and 290 of the State Report, this duration had already been characterised as “disproportionate” and “unreasonable” by the Council of Europe’s Committee on Social Rights and Commissioner on Human Rights, respectively. In the Concluding Observations, the Committee expressed its concerns “that the length of alternative service for conscientious objectors is much longer than military service, and that the assessment of applications for such service is solely under the control of the Ministry of Defence,” and recommended “The State party should ensure that the length of service alternative to military service does not have a punitive character, and should consider placing the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status under the control of civilian authorities.” ⁸

In its Second Periodic Report, examined in 2015, Greece addressed these Concluding Observations as follows:

“According to the legislation in force, those who are recognized as conscientious objectors shall be obliged to perform civilian service which is double the length of the military service. It is to be noted that, by virtue of a decision of the Minister of National Defense, conscientious objectors may be discharged even before the completion of the term of the civilian service. Currently, the duration of the civilian service, which has been fixed by ministerial decision, ranges from 5 to 15 months, while the duration of the military service ranges from 3 to 12 months. Thus, civilian service is, in most cases, only 3 months (25%) longer than military service.

“Civilian service is fulfilled under more favorable conditions than military service. This justifies the longer length of the civilian service, which is based on objective and reasonable criteria, is in accordance with the principle of proportional equality of rights and obligations and has no punitive character. The institution of civilian service should not be abused nor resorted to solely for opportunistic reasons, while the capacity of the military forces should be preserved.

“Conscientious objectors are recognized by decision of the Minister of National Defense following an opinion by a Special Committee, which examines whether interested persons fulfill the conditions set out in the law. It is to be noted that the majority of the members of the said Committee are non-military personnel. More specifically, the Committee is composed of two university professors, specialized in humanities, a member of the Legal Council of the State and two higher-ranking officers. Members are appointed by joint decision of the Ministers of Finance, National Defense, Education, Lifelong learning and Religious Affairs. The composition of the Committee guarantees its credibility and the fair treatment of all applicants.” ⁹

The Committee was informed by NGO sources that the discrepancy of 25% in fact related to the maximum durations of military and alternative civilian service, but that conscripts in the army – the vast majority - now performed only nine months service as against the normal fifteen months of alternative civilian service. The issue of the repeated punishment of those who refuse to perform either form of service was also raised.

In the List of Issues, the Committee asked “In light of the Committee’s previous concluding observations, please clarify the maximum length of military, navy and air force service. Please respond to reports that in the majority of cases, the duration of civilian service is 6 months longer than military service. How does the State party ensure that the Special Committee works independently and that persons submitting applications on the grounds of conscientious objection have the right to appeal the Committee’s decision? Please also clarify if and to what extent repeated punishment is inflicted by Greek military courts to conscientious objections for the same act of refusing the military service.” ¹⁰

According to the State’s replies:

“Currently, the duration of the military service for the compulsorily enlisted personnel in the Army is 9 months. However it may be reduced to 8 or 6 months, provided that the conscript meets certain social criteria. In the Navy and the Air Forces the duration of full military service is 12 months and the reduced one of 9 or 6 months. Those who object to armed military service on ideological or religious grounds may apply to obtain the status of conscientious objectors. This means that they are bound to offer civilian social service, performed in services of the public sector. The duties of conscientious objectors entail offering community service in hospitals, nursing homes, public finance departments, Post Offices, etc. At present, the duration of civilian social service is 15 months (full service) and can be reduced to 12 or 9 months, in proportion to the categories of reduced armed service, on the basis of social criteria.” ¹¹

The role and composition of the Special Committee was described in slightly different terms from formerly:

“A Special Committee examines if the persons seeking to be recognised as conscientious objectors meet the relevant conditions and, following its opinion, the Minister of National Defence decides if the alternative (civilian) service may be granted to the applicant. The establishment, operation and responsibilities of that Committee are defined by the law. The Committee includes two university professors specialising in philosophy, social-political sciences or psychology, one advisor or member of the Legal Council of the State and two senior Officers, one of the Recruitment-Military Legal Adviser Corps, and one of the Medical Corps. The composition of the Committee guarantees an objective opinion, since (a) except for the two senior officers who participate as members, the Committee also includes two distinguished university professors specialising in the humanities, whose opinion is given particular weight, as well as a State legal adviser. In addition, the Committee is subject to the general principles of article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, which establishes the impartiality of administrative bodies; (b) the opinion of the Committee, although not subject per se to judicial review, due to its advisory character, can be judicially reviewed in case an appeal has been filed against the final decision of the Minister of National Defence before the Council of State (Supreme Administrative Court), the same applies to the lawfulness of the establishment of the Committee. Furthermore, the national law provides for full interim juridical protection for those who file such an appeal in order to defer their obligation to join the Armed Forces for as long as the juridical proceedings last.” ¹²

Regarding repeated punishment:

“It is to be clarified that some persons refuse both the military and the alternative service and do not recognise the role of the Special Committee on political and ideological grounds. As a result, the abovementioned persons deliberately ignore the calls of Recruiting Officer to join the Greek Armed Forces, while, at the same time, they do not have the possibility to obtain the status of conscientious objector, since they deny participating in the procedure before the Special Committee. Only in such cases Greek Military Courts file a new charge through Prosecutor’s Departments for multiple acts of refusal to perform military service and inflict repeated punishment for each of these offences. Such offences, which according to the case law of the Greek Supreme Court (Arios pagos) do not violate the fundamental principle of ne bis in idem,are a direct consequence of the refusal to recognise the institutional guarantees provided in an efficient and also a sufficient way for the protection of their rights.” ¹³

The Committee took issue with the Greek Supreme Court on the question of ne bis in idem; it was also not impressed by the reassurances regarding the composition of the Special Committee, having information before it which indicated that in more than half of its sittings the previous year the two military officers had in fact represented a majority of the members participating. In the Concluding Observations it reiterated “its previous concerns about: (a) the length of alternative service for conscientious objectors, which is much longer than military service; (b) the composition of the Special Committee and its reported lack of independence and impartiality, especially when hearings are held without all members present; (c) reports indicating discrimination on the basis of different grounds of objection to service; and (d) repeated punishment of conscientious objectors, in violation of the principle of ne bis in idem”, and recommends “The State party should take measures to review its legislation with a view to recognizing the right to conscientious objection to military service, encompassing an alternative to military service that is accessible to all conscientious objectors and not punitive or discriminatory in terms of its nature, cost or duration. The State party should also avoid repetitive punishment in violation of the ne bis in idem principle and consider placing the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status under the full control of civilian authorities.”¹⁴

The following year, to the case of Papavasilakis v Greece,¹⁵ the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found that the independence of the Special Committee had been jeopardised by a hearing in which the military officers had formed the majority of the members participating, and had erred with regard to its terms of reference by relying in its rejection of the application simply on the fact that the applicant was not able to provide a certificate of baptism from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in whose faith he had been brought up, without his being given an opportunity to explain the grounds for his conscientious objection.

On 6 ^th December 2021, the Human Rights Committee published its Views on the case of Petromelidis v Greece.¹⁶This caseinvolved multiple convictions and detentions over a period of more than a decade for refusal to perform military service, initially before an alternative service for conscientious objectors was available, and subsequently also of the alternative civilian service, which he argued was punitive in nature, not just through its duration, but also in other respects, including the requirement to accept a posting far from one’s place of normal residence, inadequate financial compensation, and excessive hours of work, and in that – at the time – there was no equivalent of the possibility for those who had served a portion of their military service to “buy out” of the remainder of the obligation. The Committee (with one member dissenting) found that as it was not contested that the refusal was based on a genuine conscientious objection, there had been a violation of Article 18, that as the detentions had thus resulted from the exercise of a Covenant right they were arbitrary, in violation of Article 9.1, that the suspension of his passport over a period of fourteen years had constituted a violation of Article 12.2 and that certainly the repeated convictions for the refusal of both military and alternative service were in breach of the principle of ne bis in idem,and thus violated Article 14.7.

The Committee found that the State had an obligation to expunge the criminal record of the author, to reimburse all fines which he had paid and to award him adequate compensation. It was also required to take all measures necessary to prevent similar violations, in which respect it must review its legislation in order effectively to guarantee the right to conscientious objection, for example by assuring a civilian alternative service which was neither punitive nor discriminatory.

It might be noted that one of the issues which was brought up in that case – the rule that alternative service placements must by law be outside the region of normal residence, was subsequently the subject of a recommendation from Croatia under the Universal Periodic Review, which recommendation did not enjoy the support of Greece. ¹⁷

 

The Current Report

In the List of Issues prior to the current report, the Committee asks:

“With reference to the Committee’s previous concluding observations, please report on the measures taken to provide all conscientious objectors with an alternative to military service that is not punitive or discriminatory in terms of its nature, cost or duration. Please provide information on measures taken to ensure respect for the ne bis in idem principle and avoid inflicting repetitive punishments on conscientious objectors. Please provide information on the impact of Law No. 4361/2016, which ended prosecutions against those who had declared their conscientious objection before 1998, and indicate if the State party intends to provide adequate compensation to those who have already been sentenced and punished.” ¹⁸

It thus in particular adds to its previous concerns with the duration of alternative service a reference to the other discriminatory aspects which had been described in the Petromelidis case, Unfortunately the lack of independence of the Special Committee and the – perhaps partly resultant – discrimination between objectors on the basis of the nature of their beliefs, both of which persist, are not mentioned.

In reply, Greece states:

“183. Military service obligation, in accordance with article 4 (6) of the Constitution, is universal and compulsory. It is primarily an armed service, in the units and services of the Armed Forces; however, citizens may be recognized as conscientious objectors on the basis of their religious or ideological beliefs and serve an alternative service.

184. Currently, the duration of the service has been defined to 12 months for all branches of the Armed Forces or 9 months, depending on the location of the units where the conscripts fulfill their military obligations. However, military service duration can be reduced to 9, 8, 6 or 3 months, if there are reasons for that reduction.

185. The duration of full alternative service is 15 months, while that of the reduced service is 12, 9 or 5 months. This difference of duration is not excessive or punitive, but is based on the principle of proportional equality, since the alternative service is less burdensome than the armed service, as it is performed in bodies of the wider public sector and consists in the provision of public utility services, with better working conditions.

186. Conscientious objectors serve in regions outside their place of residence. However, they can request to be transferred close to their place of residence, after five months (instead of seven until recently), in case of family, financial, or social problems. It is to be noted that armed military service is fulfilled in the same way, while numerous civil servants also have to provide their services across the country.

187. Moreover, conscientious objectors may obtain a deferment before reporting for duty to the assigned authority. They are entitled to five days of parental leave for every child. Under Law 4609/2019, the Minister of National Defence may no longer suspend the provisions for alternative service during wartime. In case of appeal against the rejection of an application for conscientious objector status, suspension is automatically granted. The State must pay travel expenses to conscientious objectors called to report to public sector authorities for their alternative service, as well as upon their discharge from such authority or when they are called to appear before a military authority. The beneficial provisions for enlisted employees and workers also apply proportionately to conscientious objectors serving an alternative service.

188. Law 4609/2019 amended the composition of the five-member committee responsible for examining applications by citizens to be granted conscientious objector status and providing recommendations to the Minister of National Defense. In particular, the number of university professors was increased from two to three, while the number of Armed Forces Officers was reduced from two to one.

189. The legal framework on draft evasion applies to both conscientious objectors and individuals performing an armed service.

190. lf the application for conscientious objector status is rejected, the individuals must enlist in the Armed Forces with the next enlistment series, starting one month after the issuing of the relevant rejection decision. In case of non-enlistment, the persons concerned are declared draft evaders. The same applies to those recognized as conscientious objectors who do not report for duty to their assigned authority. These persons forfeit their right to perform alternative service.

191. Draft evaders face the penalties provided by the Military Penal Code (MPC), those provided by Law 3421/2005 (i.e. a 6,000 € fine), as well as the deprivations and prohibitions provided for by Articles 53 and 54 of the aforementioned Law. However, in some cases the imposed penalties can be declared null and void, as provided by the law.

192. The provisions on the consequences of draft evasion apply to both conscientious objectors and individuals performing a military service, who unduly do not report for military or alternative serνice. Recruiting Authorities haνe no option but to mandatorily declare them as draft evaders without further examination of their specific grounds. If, after their draft evasion status has ended, they still do not enlist or report to a public sector authority for alternative service, they are declared draft evaders anew and imposed the criminal and administrative penalties provided for by the law. For as long as the military or alternative service obligation is not fulfilled, a new genuine, perpetual offence of draft evasion is established, until those concerned reach forty-five years of age. When the illegal situation has ended, the limitation period starts to run, which, for misdemeanours like draft evasion, is five years. Consequently, the individual concerned may no longer be liable for military service after reaching the forty-fifth year of age, but the criminal law consequences for the offence of draft evasion which is not time-barred continue to exist.” ¹⁹

 

The Issues

1) Lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the Special Committee which examines applications on the basis of conscientious objection to perform alternative civilian servicea nd 2) Discrimination between conscientious objectors on the basis of the beliefs on which the objection is based.

As described in paragraph 188 of the State Report, Law 4609/2019 alters the composition of the five person Special Committee, replacing one of the two military officers with a third University professor. This change is however insufficient to guarantee the independence, still less the impartiality of the Special Committee.It continues to be appointed by, and to report to, the Minister of Defence, who makes the decision on its recommendations. The remaining military officer indeed has an enhanced role as secretary and rapporteur of the Special Committee.

If anything, moreover the apparent bias against what the authorities themselves classify as objectors on “ideological” as opposed to “religious” grounds has actually increased since the change in the Committee’s composition, as may be seen from the following table.

Applications to the Special Committee, 2006 - 2023 ²⁰

Year	On "Religious" grounds			On "ideological" grounds
	Applications	of which successful	%	applications	of which successful	%
2006	102	102	100.0%	2	0	0
2007	174	174	100.0%	4	2	50.0%
2008	110	110	100.0%	2	1	50.0%
2009	167	165	98.8%	3	0	0
2010	99	98	99.0%	4	3	75.0%
2011	129	125	96.9%	3	1	33.3%
2012	158	157	99.4%	17	7	41.2%
2013	144	142	98.6%	12	5	42.0%
2014	102	99	97.1%	17	10	58.8%
2015	103	99	96.1%	22	11	50.0%
2016	114	97	85.1%	20	13	65.0%
2017	58	44	78.6%	10	8	80.0%
2018	191	191	100.0%	15	14	93.3%
2019	29	29	100.0%	27	27	100.0%
2020	176	167	94.9%	13	6	46.2%
2021	99	98	99.0%	12	0	0
2022	115	109	94.8%	3	1	33.3%
2023	83	79	95.2%	4	1	25.0%

It should be explained that almost all applications officially classified as “religious” are from Jehovah’s Witnesses – like other Orthodox churches the Greek Orthodox Church does not approve of its young men refusing military service – and that where such applications are backed by a certificate of baptism from the Jehovah’s Witnesses they are usually accepted automatically without further enquiry; as the Papavasilakis case showed, those whose objections stem from Jehovah’s Witness teaching but who have not been baptised into that faith encounter difficulties similar to those faced by “ideological” objectors.) In other words, most acceptances are based on a proxy measure; where the Committee does actually examine a claim of conscientious objection the rejection rate is very high indeed.

The position of our organisations is that Greece ought, in line with the procedure welcomed t in repeated Resolutions on conscientious objection to military service the UN Human Rights Council, ²¹ and its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, to “accept claims of conscientious objection as valid without enquiry”. If there is a procedure of examination, this should be completely civilian in nature and control, i.e. outside the Ministry of Defence and with no military participation in the body examining the applications

3) Arbitrary withdrawal of recognition as a conscientious objector.

Paragraph 190 of the State Report refers to “those recognized as conscientious objectors who do not report for duty to their assigned authority,” continuing “These persons forfeit their right to perform alternative service.” with the result that they again become liable for military service and, in violation of their rights under Article 18, become liable for prosecution. (It may be noted that this had happened in the case of Petromelidis). What this amounts to is the withdrawal of the recognition of the person as a conscientious objector. As noted in paragraph 686 of Greece’s Initial Report, this is also the penalty for disciplinary offences within the alternative service placement. Even more egregiously, a person taking advantage of the opportunity to defer a placement, as outlined in paragraph 187 also effectively forfeits the recognition, as he is obliged to reapply from scratch.

4) Repeated prosecution of unrecognised conscientious objectors for their refusal to perform military service, contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem and 5) Trials of civilians in military courts.

Paragraphs 189 to 192, inclusive, of the State Report set out clearly the regime for prosecuting persons, including conscientious objectors, on charges of draft evasion. Whereas paragraph 131 of the Second Periodic Report had misleadingly stated that only “total objectors”, who refuse to appear before the Special Committee, are liable for such prosecution, it is now admitted that they also affect persons whose applications to perform alternative civilian service have been rejected, if they persist in refusing military service, and to others whose “conscientious objector status” has been withdrawn.

As indicated in paragraph 192, “For as long as the military or alternative service obligation is not fulfilled, a new genuine, perpetual offence of draft evasion is established, until those concerned reach forty-five years of age.” This means that on any number of occasions during this period they may be arrested, subjected to a fresh conviction and sentenced to a further €6,000 fine, and a further prosecution may be initiated up to the age of fifty, when the offence becomes subject to the statute of limitations. Of course and prosecution of a conscientious objector – recognised or not – is a violation of Article 18, and therefore also of Article 9, but repeated prosecutions also violate Article 14.7 of the Covenant, which enshrines the principle of ne bis in idem, as the Human Rights Committee found in the case of Petromelidis.

Trials following the refusal of military service continue to be on the military charge of insubordination, and to be heard in military courts although the defendant is usually a civilian who has never enlisted in the armed forces, The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly found that trials of civilians, and especially of conscientious objectors, by military courts constitute violation of the right to fair trial (art. 6 of ECHR). ²² Equivalently, this is a violation of Article 14.1 of the Covenant. This issue was mentioned in the Petromelidis communication, but was deemed inadmissible in the absence of evidence before the Committee that it had been raised in any of the domestic proceedings.

Police reports and information from lawyers quoted in the EBCO Annual Reports for 2022/3 and 2023/4 indicated that such prosecutions, including of persons over the age of forty-five were continuing.

6) Discriminatory terms and conditions of alternative civilian service by comparison with military service.

The increase to twelve months in the duration of Army service, making it equal to service in the Navy or Air Force, which took effect in March 2021 had the welcome effect of reducing the “normal” discrepancy to the three months, or 25%, claimed by the State Report in 2015; However the proportional discrepancy is greater for the other categories of persons entitled to reductions on the grounds of personal or family circumstances, reaching up to a 67% longer duration of 5 months for those entitled to a 3-month military service.

The question remains of whether such discrepancies are “based on reasonable and objective criteria.” It may be noted that in 2019 the duration wof alternative civilian service was reduced, but the change was annulled four months later by a different administration, which smacks of political rather than objective decision making. Indeed, the duration of alternative civilian service is set by executive decision of the Minister of Defence, in mitigation of the legal provision that it should be twice that of military service – a discrepancy which would be without question punitive, and excessively so. It is essential that at the very least a more reasonable ratio should be enshrined in law.

Moreover, paragraph 184 refers, without giving details, to the shortened nine month term of military service for those who are posted to remote locations. Such a reduction is not afforded to the many conscientious objectors whose alternative service placements are in such locations.

Other disadvantages, both financial and non-financial, also apply to alternative civilian service postings. In 2024 a fresh complaint ²³ was submitted by the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection to the European Committee on Social Rights giving considerable detail of aspects - already raised in the Petromelidis case - in which in particular the financial conditions of alternative civilian service were not only discriminatory by comparison with military service but were arguably inadequate to support an acceptable standard of living. Where possible, those offering alternative service placements are encouraged to provide food and accommodation, supposedly to create conditions equivalent to those of military service. However, if food and housing is offered, there is, by contrast with military service, no monetary payment whatsoever. Where food and accommodation is not provided, there is a wage (set in 2004) of €223.53 per month By contrast, the UN Committee on Economic and Social Rights found in 2015 that the then national minimum wage of €510.95 for civilians aged under 25 was not sufficient to sustain an adequate standard of living. In subsequent years, the minimum wage has been increased. As of 1 April 2024, the statutory minimum wage was set at €830.00. ²⁴ But the “wage” for conscientious objectors remains the same (€223.53). The threshold of poverty for a household of a single person is set to €6,030 annually, ²⁵ which is equivalent to €502.5 monthly, which is more than double the “wage” of conscientious objectors (€223.53).

Moreover, it is explicitly stipulated that those performing alternative civilian service may receive no other monetary payment for any reason, thus rendering them ineligible to claim any social allowances to which they might be entitled. The financial allowance paid to all military conscripts, in contrast, varies according to their family situation, and of course they are provided with uniform, whereas those performing alternative service receive no clothing allowance. Paragraph 187 of the State Report mentions travel at the beginning and end of the placement, but omits that military conscripts, unlike those performing alternative civilian service, are also granted travel expenses for one period of leave during their service. It also omits that, unlike military conscripts, those performing alternative civilian service have to travel home if they are to vote in elections, that in a number of instances military conscripts benefit from discounted travel rates, which are not available to those performing alternative civilian service, and that travel expenses to Athens for appearance before the Special Committee are not refunded for applicants for alternative civilian service.

Then there is the rule that alternative service postings must be outside the region of normal residence, which of course adds to the costs of discretionary travel and other means of keeping in touch with family. (Or in taking advantage of the five days of parental leave mentioned in paragraph 187 of the State Report). Although paragraph 186 of the State Report indicates that this condition can be waived after five months, it seems that this is discretionary, only applies in cases of particular personal difficulties, and it still allows for a transfer only relatively closer to the region of normal residence but not inside it. The reply by Greece to a communication in 2019 from the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief justified this provision in the regulations for civilian alternative service on the grounds that military conscripts served away from their place of usual residence,²⁶and in paragraph 186 of the State Report it is repeated that “armed military service is fulfilled in the same way, while numerous civil servants also have to provide their services across the country.” However, as stated in EBCO’s complaint to the European Committee on Social Rights, “there is no such explicit restriction in law for conscripts serving in the armed forces”. ²⁷

In all of these respects – duration, provision of food and accommodation, location of postings, the conditions of alternative service have been carefully set so as not to be beneficial compared with those of military service. However taken cumulatively they amount to discrimination against conscientious objectors stemming from their religion or belief, in violation of Article 26 of the Covenant.

Finally, it might be noted that more enlightened States allow conscientious objectors a choice between accepted alternative civilian service postings despite the varying stringencies of the different postings.

7) Shortcomings in the legislation and procedures concerning conscientious objection to military service, including inadequate information given to potential conscripts and arbitrary restrictions on who may be recognised as a conscientious objector.

In several other respects the provisions in Greece fall short of the best international standards. No information is provided with the call-up materials which might inform a recruit who is not already aware of it of the possibility of applying as a conscientious objector, let alone of the procedure for doing so. As in other States in the region, there is an arbitrary exclusion from recognition as a conscientious objector of “Those who have obtained a permit to carry arms or have applied for such a permit, as well as those who participate in individual or collective activities of shooting competitions, hunting or similar events directly related to the use of weapons.” ²⁸ Subsection (a) of the same Article also excludes “Those who have served under arms for any period of time in the Greek or foreign Armed Forces or Security Forces, after having embraced beliefs that prevent them from fulfilling armed military obligations for reasons of conscience” - elsewhere persons who have performed military service in another State are usually excused on the basis of that service. Sub paragraph (c) also excludes “Those who have been convicted or have pending criminal proceedings against them for a crime related to the use of weapons, ammunition or illegal violence” - rather more reasonably, but in this instance excluding the possibility of subsequent reform and, apparently, the presumption of innocence..

8) Inability of serving members of the armed forces to obtain release on the basis of conscientious objection

Applications for recognition as conscientious objectors may be considered only at the time of initial call-up, and only before the scheduled date of enlistment; In 2010 ithe right was extended in law also to those who faced reserve service but had become conscientious objectors since their initial period of military service; it is however still not available to those who develop conscientious objections during their obligatory military service, nor to professional servicemen who seek early release having developed conscientious objections.

9) Compensation for prosecuted conscientious objectors who had declared their conscientious objection before 1998.

No response is given to the question about the impact of Law No. 4361/2016 and compensation for those prosecuted who had declared their conscientious objection before 1998, and in particular to the question of whether those concerned have been duly compensated.

10) Failure to implement the Committee’s Views in Petromelidis v Greece

Lastly, we are disturbed that the State party has yet to implement the operative part of the Committee’s Views in the case of Petromelidis v. Greece in December 2021. ²⁹ We recall that this stated that the State had an obligation to expunge the criminal record of the author, to reimburse all fines which he had paid and to award him adequate compensation and to take all measures necessary to prevent similar violations, in which respect it must review its legislation in order effectively to guarantee the right to conscientious objection, for example by assuring a civilian alternative service which was neither punitive nor discriminatory.

-------

In addition, it might be mentioned that CPTI intends to explore with the Committee on the Rights of the Child the calculation of age used in Greek military recruitment legislation, which refers to the calendar year rather than the actual date of birth. Although this may seem a technicality, it can result in individual cases in the effective minimum recruitment age being an entire twelve months lower. The timetable for obligatory call-up in Greece is such that this does not pose a problem, but there is a possibility that it might provide a loophole to permit the voluntary recruitment of persons before their eighteenth birthday, contrary to Greece’s Declaration on ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

 

Suggested Comments and Recommendations

That the State Party forthwith and fully implement the Committee’s Views in the case of Petromelidis v Greece, by ceasing all prosecutions of conscientious objectors in violation of their rights under Article 18, by in all cases, including that of the author, annulling any convictions, expunging criminal records, reimbursing any fines paid and providing appropriate compensation. and by reviewing its legislation, including particularly but not exclusively the elements mentioned below, to ensure the effective guarantee of the right to conscientious objection

The Committee welcomes the fact that Law 4609/2019 abolishes the provision whereby the Minister of National Defence may suspend the provisions for alternative service during wartime, noting that it is in time of war that the full protection of the right of conscientious objection to military service becomes most urgent. The Committee also welcomes the change in the balance between military and civilian members of the Special Committee made by that Law. However the Special Committee is still appointed by and responsible to the Minister of Defence, who takes the final decision on its recommendations. The Committee repeats its previous recommendation that the Special Committee be placed under completely civilian control.

The Committee is concerned by continuing evidence that there is bias in the recognition of conscientious objectors against those who are not baptised Jehovah’s Witnesses. It recommends that the terms of reference of the Special Committee so as to make it clear that there should be no discrimination between objectors based on the grounds for the objection.

That under no circumstances should the recognition of a person as a conscientious objector be withheld or withdrawn for reasons unconnected with the substance of the claim itself.

That in order to respect the principle of ne bis in idem the State Party introduce a legislative provision that any punishment imposed as a result of the refusal to perform military service discharge the liability, with the effect that the person concerned is not liable to further call-ups, arrests or prosecutions., moreover that any prosecutions of civilians on such charges be heard in civilian courts.

That the State Party ensure that all differences between military and alternative civilian service, whether in duration, remuneration, or other conditions are objectively justified, both individually and in aggregate, are neither punitive nor discriminatory, and are not intended to dissuade applications for alternative civilian service.

Finally, we recommend to the Committee that it include conscientious objection to military service among the issues on which under Article 75 of its Rules of Procedure, it request a follow-up report from the State.