CO UPDATE

Editorial

Welcome to the third issue of CO Update, the e-newsletter of WRI's Right to Refuse to Kill programme. This issue of CO Update starts with an essay by WRI Council member and New Profile activist Sergeiy Sandler on the situation of women COs in Israel. We want to encourage other WRI activists to reflect on the situation regarding conscientious objection in their country, and the CO Update e-newsletter can be a tool to spread such analysis. This will help CO groups and supporters in other countries to develop their own struggle, and it can also be an important information in asylum related cases.

As War Resisters' International is a network, the quality of the CO Update newsletter very much depends on the contributions from the network. This issue of CO-Update happens to have a focus on legal development, and legal action. There is news on South Korean conscientious objectors taking their case to the UN Human Rights Committee, on the case of Osman Murat Ülke at the European Court of Human Rights, and of a High Court judgement concerning the appeal of a Muslim CO in Britain.

Upcoming events

1 December - Prisoners for Peace Day

This years focus: conscientious objection in Finland.

It is only one more month to Prisoners for Peace Day. The special edition of WRI's The Broken Rifle, incorporating the annual Prisoners for Peace Honour Roll, will be available in English online after 4 November, and in print from 15 November on. The German, French, and Spanish editions will be available soon after. Please contact the WRI Office if you require print copies, or feel free to download the material from our website, and make your own copies.
More information is available at wri-irg.org/co/01dec.htm.

War Resisters' International also published a special report on conscientious objection in Finland for the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This report is available on this site.

Please let the WRI office know what you are planning for Prisoners for Peace Day. We suggest:

• On 1 December, put aside at least one hour and write at least four cards to prisoners;
• Get your peace group or class or meeting place to organise a card-writing session;
• Set up a stall in your town centre, perform street theatre, or do whatever else it takes to attract attention and interest.

WRI Seminar 2005 in South Korea

In cooperation with several partner organisations from South Korea, War Resisters' International is preparing for its 2005 seminar and Council meeting, which will take place in or close to Seoul in June 2005. The theme of the seminar will be "Peace in North-East Asia". The Korean groups started a website on the seminar, which will carry updated information. Information is also available on the WRI website.

Housmans Peace Diary 2005 available

The Housmans Peace Diary 2005 will be available from mid-November, and can be ordered now through the WRI webshop. The Housmans Peace Diary includes the Housmans World Peace database, and has a week-to-a-view diary.
You can order a copy of the diary on WRI's webshop, or on the single copy order page.

CO-Update

Monthly email newsletter of WRI's Right to Refuse to Kill Programme

War Resisters' International, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX, Britain; tel +44-20-7278 4040; fax +44-20-7278 0444; email co-update-editor@wri-irg.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe

To subscribe, you can go to the website of this list, or send an email.

To unsubscribe, send an email to co-update-request

@wri-irg.org with the subject "unsubscribe", and reply to the confirmation request you will receive.

Donate to WRI!

War Resisters' International depends on your donations to be able to carry out its work. Donate to WRI online now at wri-irg.org/en/donate-en.htm.

The precarious position of women objectors in Israel

The status of women under the Israeli conscription law, and practice, has always been exceptional. Now, legal developments threaten to deprive women conscientious objectors in Israel of the little recognition of their right to CO that they enjoyed so far.

In 1949, the decision has been made in the Israeli parliament: the Israeli conscription law made conscription mandatory for men and women alike. To appease opposition from religious parties, it was agreed that observant Jewish women be exempted from military duty, but many among the religious Members of Parliament felt uncomfortable with such a purely sector-specific arrangement. This is the story behind Israel's peculiar form of recognition of the right to CO: conscientious objection is recognised as legal grounds for exemption from military service, but only for women.

This is also the context in which developed Israel's unique movement of women COs. In early 1954, Chava Bloch, the first known woman in Israel to make use of her right to CO, faced a State bureaucracy that literally did not know what to do with her. Fifty years later, several hundreds women are granted exemptions on grounds of conscience, in a procedure set out in official government regulations every year. But in many respects the authorities continue improvising their way through.

Women objectors are supposed to convince the members of a committee that reasons of conscience prevent them from performing military service. This committee's members, however, have no relevant qualifications and show no understanding of what conscientious objection is. Instead of listening to the applicant and asking relevant questions, they often prefer furiously attacking her for her expressed views, without letting her express herself in any length. For many years it was standard procedure in these committees to automatically reject all applicants, and then to automatically overturn the rejection upon appeal.Moreover, the Israeli law says nothing about what kinds of conscientious grounds are to be considered acceptable. The committees dealing with women's requests for exemption on grounds of conscience often understood that only pacifist COs (in their peculiar interpretation of what pacifism implies) are to be granted exemption, but there were also quite many cases where a non-pacifist woman CO, if insistent enough, managed to obtain an exemption from military service on grounds of conscience.

In parallel, recent years have seen some advances in Israeli male COs' legal and political struggle for the recognition of their right to resist conscription. While initially the Israeli military was not willing to grant any man an exemption from military service on grounds of conscience (with the possible exception of some reservists), constant legal and political pressure pushed the military, with the backing of Israel's Supreme Court, into a compromise position: recently several young male draft resisters have been granted exemption on grounds of conscience. All have managed to convince the military that they are pacifist COs, and that too by very restrictive criteria.

But this positive development for men had a cost for women. In 2003, the military instructed the women's committees (which officially are not supposed to belong to the military at all, by the way) not to exempt any woman CO who refuses to serve in the Israeli army on non-pacifist conscientious grounds. And this the committees have done, in their own nasty way (e.g. mentioning the Israeli military when giving examples to illustrate some general point in the course of the interview is usually enough to have a CO labelled 'selective' and thus rejected. Often the committee members would insist on the applicant giving examples from the practice or history of the Israeli army, so that they would have the excuse to reject the application).

This new practice was the reason for the appeal to Israel's Supreme Court, made earlier this year by CO Laura Milo. Milo refuses to serve in the Israeli army because it is an occupying force. She was rejected by the committee that examined her case, and was rejected again by an appeals committee. After spending one short term in military prison for refusing to enlist, she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming that the Israeli law provides for exemption from military service to any woman who refuses to serve in the army for reasons of conscience, and nowhere does it say that some sincere conscientious position is to be accepted while another is not.

On 9 Aug. this year, Israel's Supreme Court published its decision to reject Laura Milo's appeal (following which Laura was sent to 14 more days in prison). This in itself was to be expected. The argumentation behind this decision was, however, much of a surprise to everyone involved, including the representatives of the State.

Israel's conscription law grants women an exemption from military service on “grounds of conscience or grounds of religious family lifestyle”. Traditionally it was understood by all parties involved that these are two distinct grounds for exemption, but the new interpretation of the law, laid out in the Supreme Court's ruling in the Milo case unites the two. According to the new interpretation, exemption on grounds of conscience is to be given only to women whose family or community, due to some form of religious lifestyle (presumably Jewish), would not allow women to perform military service. Notably, these grounds for exemption are not what we would normally call conscientious grounds at all. So the new court ruling basically annuls the State's legal recognition of women's right to CO.

Laura Milo's lawyers have filed a special request to the Supreme Court to reconsider this decision. Among other things, they claim that it was explicitly the aim of the legislators to provide for exemption on grounds of conscience in general, and not just on grounds of religious observance (recall the history of this provision recounted above), and that the letter of the law quite explicitly reflects this, so the Supreme Court has actually deleted an explicit provision from a law -- which it is not authorised to do. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel -- a highly respected NGO focusing on legal work -- has also requested the decision to be re-examined, as it weighs on the recognition of the right to freedom of conscience in Israel, as well as due to the negative effects it has on pacifist women COs, none of whom has even been a side to the original appeal by Laura Milo. Both claim that the new interpretation of the law was not even remotely proposed by any of the parties to the original appeal, and it would only be fair if the parties get their chance to comment upon it in a court discussion.

The State Attorney, on the other hand, claims that there is no point in reconsidering the decision, especially since, according to the State's position, Laura's appeal has to be rejected whether or not the new interpretation suggested by the court holds. This, however does not seem to be a position held unanimously by the State system. The Ministry of Defence itself appears to be reluctant to implement this new reading of the law. The fact is that women COs continue to be referred to the same committees as before, rather than to the internal military committee that reviews the cases of male COs (and there is quite a difference between the two in terms of procedures, in terms of the rights of the applicant, and of course, in terms of the final outcome). While in April this year, before the decision in Milo's case, a record number of four women COs, including Milo herself, were imprisoned at the same time, we as yet know of no woman CO imprisoned since the court ruling was given.

What will be the final decision regarding the legal right of Israeli women to conscientious objection? What awaits women COs in Israel in practice? All these questions remain unanswered at the moment. Even more than their male peers, women COs in Israel are now in a situation of great uncertainty.

Sergeiy Sandler, New Profile

Turkey: Brief arrest of conscientious objector

The Turkish conscientious objector Cemal Karakus, who declared his conscientious objection publicly on 15 May 2004, was briefly arrested by police in mid-October. The reason for his arrest was that he is considered a draft evader. However, the police did not find any reason to keep him under arrest, and so he was released again. So far, the police did not attempt again to arrest him.

On 28 October, 4 more conscientious objectors publicly declared their conscientious objection in the office of the Human Rights Association in Izmir. With the beginning of negotiation between the European Union and Turkey about Turkey's EU membership, the issue of conscientious objection might form one obstacle for Turkey. Several human rights organisations hope that the European Union will put pressure on Turkey to solve a wide range of human rights problems... if conscientious objection will be one of these issues is not yet known, and will depend on CO groups lobbying the European Union.

In another development, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has now admitted the case of Osman Murat Ülke, a Turkish conscientious objector who was arrested in October 1996 and spent 2 1/2 years in prison, on several charges of disobeying orders. The complaint to the European Court of Human Rights is mainly based on Article 9 of the European Convention, which guarantees the right to freedom of thought and conscience. The admission of the case on the grounds of conscientious objection to military service will make for a very important hearing and final judgement. If the European Court of Human Rights comes to the conclusion that conscientious objection is part of the right to freedom of thought and conscience, then this will mean a big step forward for conscientious objectors.

The decision is available as a Word document from the courts' website (in French). Contact the WRI office for an English translation.
Sources: email Hilal Demir, WRI Council member, 28 October 2004

Korea: Two CO cases submitted to UN Human Rights Committee

Two South Korean conscientious objectors, Mr Myung-Jin Choi and Mr Yeo-Bum Yoon, brought their case to the United Nations in an individual complaint under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The two individual complaints are the last legal means available to conscientious objectors in South Korea, after both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court rules against the right to conscientious objection on 15 July and 26 August 2004 (see CO-Update No 1). The two COs complain that their right to conscientious objection, derived from Article 18 of the ICCPR (Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) is being violated.

Both, the Korean Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court rejected the claim that conscientious objection is a human right, and gave the opinion that "national security" is of more importance than an individual's human right. As of 30 June 2004, 436 conscientious objectors were in prison in South Korea, but almost 280 cases were pending, because cases had been placed on hold to await the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. Korean human rights lawyers expect that the number of CO's in prison will rise to more than 1,000 by the end of 2004.

The two Korean cases will be of importance well beyond South Korea.

Source: Communication from Suk-Tae Lee, lawyer of Myung-Jin Choi and Yeo-Bum Yoon.
Background information: Briefing paper on conscientious objection and human rights issues in the Republic of Korea, April 2004.
English translations of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court decision are available from the WRI office on request.

Britain: Muslim Iraq war objector looses appeal

Muslim Gulf war conscientious objector Mohisin Khan, who refused to take part in the war on Iraq because he did not want to fight against fellow Muslims, lost his appeal in the hight court against his prosecution by the RAF for going absent without leave on 7 October 2004.

Khan voluntarily enlisted in the Royal Air Force in December 1999, and joined the Medical Assistant trade on an engagement for 9 years of service plus 6 years reserve. In January 2001, Khan applied for premature release, which was granted on 24 April 2001. He therefore became a reservist.

In January 2003 Mohisin Khan was recalled for service, following the mobilisation of some reserves in the run-up to the war on Iraq. The call-up papers listed several reasons for exemption, but this list did not include reasons of conscience or religion.

The High Court of Justice ruled that the right to conscientious objection does not amount to a defence in law against punishment for absence without leave. The RAF punished Khan after his arrest with the loss of nine days' pay and seven days' privileges.

The regulations governing conscientious objection in Britain are covered by a smokescreen. It is therefore not surprising that Khan did not apply for discharge for reasons of conscience, but saw no other way then to go absent without leave. Even the High Court of Justice writes in its judgement on the appeal: "It is, however, true that the call-out materials in this case, like the 1997 Regulations, do not mention conscientious objection expressly. In that respect, it would seem that the information provided to the recalled reservist could be improved" (Para 57) - peace organisations in Britain demand for years that the CO regulations, which are considered confidential documents, should be made public, so that independent organisations can give advice to potential conscientious objectors.

Source: The Guardian, 8 October 2004
The judgement can be found at http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2822/khan-v-raf.htm

Azerbaijan: Conscientious objector claim rejected

Although Azerbaijan introduced the constitutional right to conscientious objection in a referendum 2 years ago, an appeal court in Baku rejected the claim of a conscientious objector on 16 September. Jehovah's Witness Mahir Bagirov was called up in 2000, but wrote to the recruitment office that he wishes to perform alternative service because of his faith. He was then again called up in May 2004. On 9 June, he lodged his suit at Baku's Khatai district court, artguing that the call up was unconstitutional. Article 76 part 2 of the constitution of Azerbaijan states: "If the beliefs of citizens come into conflict with service in the army then in some cases envisaged by law alternative service instead of regular army service is permitted". However, such a law has not been passed yet.

As part of Azerbaijan's commitments to the Council of Europe, the country changed the constitution in 2002 to allow for conscientious objection. But a law has not been passed, and the draft is still being discussed in the parliament.

Source: Forum 18 News Service, 6 October 2004

Recent co-alerts

In the previous month, the WRI office issued the following co-alerts:
(a full archive of co-alerts is available at wri-irg.org/news/alerts)

• ARMENIA: Conscientious objectors imprisoned in spite of CO law 21/10/04
• ISRAEL: Conscientious objector sentenced to 28 days 30/09/04