Broken Rifle symbol

CO UPDATE

Produced in cooperation with the Myrtle Solomon Memorial Trust
No 18 / March 2006

The monthly email newsletter of War Resisters' International's The Right to Refuse to Kill programme || Index of past issues

Editorial

Issue 18 of our CO-Update e-newsletter has a lot of legal developments to report: good news about a "friendly settlement" regarding the case of a conscientious objector from Bolivia, which includes the commitment of the Bolivian government to introduce a law on conscientious objection, and another decision in favour of Turkish antimilitarist activists.

However, we also have to report on negative developments, especially from Eastern Europe - see our reports from Russia and Armenia.

Please take a note of our upcoming events (below), and contact the WRI office in case you have any further questions.

Andreas Speck

Upcoming events

Operation Refuse War

15 May - International Conscientious Objectors Day

Focus on US resisters and GIs

From May 11th to 16th, an international group of conscientious objectors will gather in New York City and Washington, DC for Operation Refuse War, a week of conferences, demonstrations, and actions in celebration of International Conscientious Objectors Day, May 15th. With no end in sight to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a sharp drop in the number of new military recruits, and deep dissatisfaction within the military, the need to popularize conscientious objection and to support conscientious objectors has never been stronger.

Since the 1980s, May 15th has been celebrated as International Conscientious Objectors' Day. Each year, activities are held in a country where conscientious objectors are facing persecution or harassment. Previous locations have included the Balkans in 2002, Israel in 2003, Chile in 2004, and Greece in 2005. In addition, a similar gathering of conscientious objectors has been held each year in Washington, DC to forward the rights of conscientious objectors in the United States.

This week of action will highlight the difficulties that current conscientious objectors face as well as help build relationships and connections between the various communities within the anti-war movement. The focus of the events will be on supporting contemporary American conscientious objectors and their families, as well as examining the current potential of conscientious objection (in its various forms) as a strategy for building an anti-war movement. In addition, Operation Refuse War will bring together international and American conscientious objectors to share their experiences and ideas. The week will end with a trip for some to speak to individual members of Congress and others to join a demonstration that connects the opposition of this war with the opposition of other wars.

Part of this weekend will include a meeting of the conscientious objectors with the GI Rights Hotline and members of the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild. In addition, the Hotline and Guild members will spend time on their own working to better their response to the ever-increasing demand for help from the members of the military who seek to resist the war.

Sponsoring organizations include

For more information, contact the WRI Office, or check for updates on www.operationrefusewar.org.

Globalising Nonviolence, 23-27 July 2006, Germany

The War Resisters' International conference Globalising Nonviolence will be a great opportunity to meet activists from all over the world, to get to know what makes them tick, and to see how you can help each make another world possible. Around the world, a movement of movements is converging. This movement seeks to counterpose the perspective and values of people's power to those of global financial institutions, transnational corporations or governments. This is a movement of globalisation from below.

WRI believes that this movement of movements has a major role to play in this globalisation from below. Hence the theme of our upcoming international conference - Globalising Nonviolence.

Conference discussions will:

More information at www.globalisingnonviolence.org

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-unsubscribe
@lists.wri-irg.org.

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.

Bolivia: "Friendly Settlement" in conscientious objection case

Bolivia and a Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector reached a "friendly settlement" following a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Bolivian ombudsman. According to Report No 97/05, "Alfredo Díaz Bustos is a Jehovah's Witness whose right to conscientious objection has been violated by the State, directly affecting his freedom of conscience and religion, and that the State has failed to fulfill its obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in the American Convention, to which Bolivia is a party. The petitioner further alleges that the Bolivian State violated his client's right to equal protection before the law. The petitioner says Mr. Bustos was discriminated against as a Jehovah's Witness because the Bolivian National Defense Service Act provides unequal treatment for Roman Catholics and adherents of other faiths, because the former qualify for exemption from military service while the latter do not. Finally, the petitioner alleges that the Bolivian State has violated the alleged victim's right to judicial protection because the final judgment of the Constitutional Court established that matters concerning conscientious objection to compulsory military service cannot be submitted to the courts, so violations of the right to freedom of conscience and religion on grounds of conscientious objection to military service cannot be brought to justice."

It is interesting that this case was solved by "friendly settlement", and even more interesting are the terms of the settlement, as reported by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

This document, which can become a public document upon certification of the signatures and seals, consists of the following agreement signed by the parties as contained in these clauses:

One. Parties

The parties to this agreement are:
Gonzalo Méndez Gutiérrez, Minister of National Defense, representing the Bolivian State, and
Alfredo Díaz Bustos, Bolivian citizen with identity card CI 3483469 LP of legal standing and domiciled in the City of La Paz.

Two. Background.

On December 30, 2003, after exhausting domestic remedies, Alfredo Díaz Bustos, under the auspices of the Ombudsman, lodged a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in which he accused the Bolivian State of refusing to recognize his status as a conscientious objector to compulsory military service, thereby violating his rights guaranteed in Articles 12, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

On October 13, 2004, the IACHR issued Report No. 52/04 on Case 12.475 (petition P-14/04) Alfredo Díaz Bustos v. Bolivia, in which it declared the admissibility of the case for the purpose of determining, in its examination of the merits, whether the Bolivian State violated Articles 1(1), 2, 12, 13(1), 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Alfredo Díaz Bustos.

In June 2005 The Bolivian government inquired if the Ombudsman Alfredo Díaz Bustos would be willing to resolve the case with a friendly settlement. That initiative led to this agreement that will resolve the matter presented to the Inter-American Commission.

Three. Agreement.

I. The Bolivian State, represented by the Ministry of Defense, agrees:

  1. to give Alfredo Díaz Bustos his document of completed military service within thirty (30) working days after he submits all the required documentation to the Ministry of Defense;
  2. to present the service document free of charge, without requiring for its delivery payment of the military tax stipulated in the National Defense Service Act, or the payment of any other amount for any reason or considerations of any other nature, whether monetary or not;
  3. at the time of presentation of the service record, to issue a Ministerial Resolution stipulating that in the event of an armed conflict Alfredo Díaz Bustos, as a conscientious objector, shall not be sent to the battlefront nor called as an aide;
  4. in accordance with international human rights law, to include the right to conscientious objection to military service in the preliminary draft of the amended regulations for military law currently under consideration by the Ministry of Defense and the armed forces;
  5. together with the Deputy Ministry of Justice, to encourage congressional approval of military legislation that would include the right to conscientious objection to military service;
  6. upon signature of this document, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will immediately inform the IACHR of the agreement reached so that the Commission can recognize it and process Case 12.475 in accordance with the procedure for friendly settlement established in Articles 48.1.f and 49 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 41 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR.

II. For his part, Alfredo Díaz Bustos agrees:

  1. for internal administrative purposes of the Ministry of Defense, to present a statement sworn before a competent judge in accordance with Article 78 of the National Defense Service Act;
  2. once he has received the record of completed military service and the Ministerial Resolution is issued by the Ministry of Defense in the terms stipulated in Clause Three I of this document, to request through the Ombudsman that the IACHR assign Case 12.475 to the status of friendly settlement as provided in Articles 48.1.f and 49 of the Convention on Human Rights and Article 41 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR;
  3. once the record of completed military service and Ministerial Resolution of the Ministry of Defense are delivered to the interested party, he will renounce all costs and damages arising from the processing of the case and agree not to lodge a new administrative or legal action in a domestic or international jurisdiction concerning the same facts that gave rise to the petition to the IACHR, provided that the Bolivian State fully carries out all its agreements assumed in this document in Clause I a, b, c, and f.

Four. Compliance in good faith and acceptance.

The parties freely accept the agreed points for strict compliance in good faith, in token whereof they hereto affix their signatures in the City of La Paz on the fourth day of July, two thousand five.

Source: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No 97/05, 27 October 2005 (in Spanish: Informe No 97/05)

Macedonia: CO statistics

On 11 January 2006 War Resisters' International asked the Macedonian Ministry of Defence some questions about applications for conscientious objection in 2005. WRI did so on request of its Macedonian section Peace Action, who were unable to obtain the figures, and were told by the Ministry of Defence that they might respond to questions from an international/foreign NGO. Peace Action drafted the fax in Macedonian, and this was put on WRI stationary, signed and faxed to the Ministry of Defence from London.

The answer was received only four weeks later, and funnily enough went to Peace Action, with the request to pass on the answer to War Resisters' International. According to the Macedonian Ministry of Defence, in 2005, there were 1,530 applications for conscientious objection, of which 1,330 were accepted (87%). By the end of 2005, 420 conscientious objectors had finished their substitute service, and 430 were serving.

Source: Fax of Macedonian Ministry of Defence to Peace Action, via email from Peace Action, 8 February 2006

Russia: Arrests at anti-war protest / call for refusal during spring call-up for military service

Following a recent case of hazing within the military, several organisations openly called for a boycott of the spring 2006 round of call-ups to military service. The Russian paper Pravda reported in its English language online edition on 23 February: "Russian draft boards may face a large-scale boycott of conscription this spring. In the light of the recent tragedy of Private Andrei Sychev, a number of human rights activists have launched a propaganda campaign aimed at boycotting the conscription. Meanwhile, opinion polls indicate the majority of Russians believe the bullying in the Russian armed forces is a widespread phenomenon and nothing is being done to combat it. (...) A columnist at Moskowsky Komsomolets newspaper called on the young men to throw away the draft cards and evade the draft. In her column, Kalinina wrote that 'taking into account what the army did to the soldier Andrei Sychev, every male of 18 years of age in Russia has the full moral right to dodge the draft by using any legal means and methods. Saying 'no' to conscription in today's army is not an evasion of constitutional duty. On the contrary, is a display of civil maturity.'

Human rights activists also joined the campaign. The leader of the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers Valentina Melnikova recommends that conscripts write the following letter to the Russian president, prosecutor general and governor:

"I (name) hereby refuse to take part in the spring conscription of 2006 because I know that I will be subject to beating, humiliation and extortion after arriving in a military unit. I request to regard my refusal to participate in conscription as an action taken in the state of extreme necessity (Article 39 of the Russian Criminal Code) and therefore should not to be regarded as a crime and subject to criminal prosecution. I am ready to be drafted to active military service after the state is able to ensure that my health is not at risk and my personality is respected."

According to Valentina Melnikova, the media reports on Andrei Sychev and the official statistics of the Russian Defense Ministry should be attached to the letter. The statistics show that 53 people died in the Russian armed forces in January 2006. The number includes 14 people who committed suicide. Valentina Melnikova maintains that a well-formulated letter should create good chances for a conscript to win his case in court and stay home, Newsru.com says.

Meanwhile, some Russian lawyers and the military are quite skeptical about prospects for conscripts to win their cases in court. They believe conscripts will lose and will be called up in any case. The lawyer Pavel Astakhov said that an extreme necessity can only occur in 'a concrete situation.' Melnikova's recommendations point to 'a fabricated extreme necessity.'

A chief of one of the Moscow draft boards who spoke to the newspaper on the condition of anonymity, said that a court of law would not register a lawsuit of a conscript who broke a deadline for filing an application for alternative civil service. He also said that he had seen the attempts to boycott the draft a few years ago, 'the dodgers ended up paying fines and getting suspended prison terms, so they paid their fines first and got drafted in the end.' "

According to reports by the Mothers' Rights Foundation, "three thousand soldiers on average die every year in the Russian army. During the last year 6083 families whose sons perished in the army during the compulsory military service applied for help to the Foundation. The Chairwoman of the Foundation Board, Veronica Marchenko, said that in 25% of cases the matter concerns suicide, but often such wording is used in the official certificate in order not to pay compensation to a deceased's family. Moreover, 23% of deaths in the army are attributed to accidents, 16% to military operations, 15% to other soldiers' aggressive acts and 11% to illness. Besides, in 17% cases the perished soldier was the only child in the family and 14% of parents, who lost their son in military service, are disabled persons. Parents of a perished soldier can get a pension, which amounts 70 dollars a month, but they receive it only if it was proved that the cause of death wasn't a suicide or an illness. In addition, investigation often doesn't take into consideration that in most cases a soldier was driven to suicide after everyday humiliation, brutal tortures and harassment. According to Veronica Marchenko, the last year is characterized by unusually cruel murders and numerous criminal cases."

Arrests at anti-war demonstration

Representatives of the movement “Autonomous Action”, who introduce themselves as incorrigible deserters of principle, held their protest action. Olga Miryasova, activist of Autonomous Action Moscow, is totally confident that the State does not need an army. In her opinion, creation of a professional army isn't a way out of the current situation, because a soldier undergoes there long and thoroughly training and as a result he becomes a professional killer.  So far the movement unites only 150 persons, but actually in Russia there are many people who don't want to serve in the army.

The protest ended when the group was blocked when it tried to approach the Kremlin. About 15 protesters were detained.

Sources: Pravda.ru, 23 February 2006, Human Rights House Network, 23 February 2006

Turkey: another ECHR decision

In a new judgement, the European Court on Human Rights ruled against against Turkey, and in favour of antimilitarist activists. The case was brought by İzmir Savaş Karşıtları Derneği and Others against Turkey (no. 46257/99), on grounds of violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicants are an association, İzmir Savaş Karşıtları Derneği (Izmir Association Against War), and Ayşe Tosuner, Ali Serdar Tekin and Osman Murat Ülke, Turkish nationals born in 1950, 1974 and 1970 respectively, who live in Izmir (Turkey).

In January 1994 various members of the applicant association travelled to Germany to attend meetings organised by an association of lawyers and Greenpeace. The president of the applicant association, Mr Murat Ülke, also travelled to Colombia and Brazil in November and December 1994 to attend other meetings.

On 5 June 1996 certain members of the association were sentenced by İzmir Criminal Court under section 43 of Law no. 2908 to three months' imprisonment as they had not sought permission to leave the country from the Ministry of the Interior. That judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on the ground that the Criminal Court had failed to commute the prison sentences into fines. The case was remitted to the Criminal Court, which complied with the Court of Cassation's judgment on 14 July 1997.

The applicants complained that their right to freedom of association and to peaceful assembly had been infringed by their criminal convictions for allowing members of the association to travel overseas without requesting prior permission from the authorities. They relied on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association)

The issue before the Court was whether the interference with the applicants' freedom of association could be considered to have been “necessary in a democratic society”. It reiterated that in a democratic society based on the rule of law, political ideas which challenged the existing order and whose realisation was advocated by peaceful means had to be afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the exercise of the right of assembly as well as by other lawful means. In view of the role played by associations, any measure taken against them affected both freedom of association and, consequently, democracy in the State concerned.

The Court reiterated that the State could not, in the name of protecting “national security” or “public safety”, take just any measure it happened to deem appropriate. It further noted that no member State of the Council of Europe possessed legislation similar to section 43 of the Turkish law on associations, which was repealed in 2004.

Accordingly, the Court found that the permission the applicants had been required to obtain in the case before it could not be regarded as pursuing a legitimate aim, namely the protection of national security or public safety. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 and awarded Mr Murat Ülke and Mr Ali Serdar Tekin EUR 1,500 each for pecuniary damage and the applicants EUR 4,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Source: http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2006/March/ChamberJudgments020306.htm

Armenia: situation of conscientious objectors worrying / 48 COs in prison

Forum 18 News Service reported on 22 February that 48 Jehovah's Witness conscientious objectors were imprisoned in Armenia, with four more awaiting trial. A Jehovah's Witness lawyer has complained to Forum 18 News Service "that the Armenian authorities are deliberately dragging out the trials, as they are too embarrassed to sentence them.

The lawyer, who preferred not to be named, gave the appeal of the four Jehovah's Witnesses who abandoned their 'alternative' service at Sevan Psychiatric Hospital, north of Lake Sevan, last May as an example. The four abandoned their service when after it became obvious that the military was in control; they were checked up on by Military Police, kept in military barracks, fed by the military, had to wear military uniforms and were ordered to have military haircuts. Cases against them for abandoning their service were begun by the Military Prosecutor. Their appeal was due on 17 February, but after waiting an hour for the Prosecutor it turned out that the four prisoners had not been brought,' the lawyer told Forum 18 on 21 February. 'The judge could have phoned the prison and had them brought as it is only 15 minutes' drive away. But he didn't.' The appeal is now due on 27 February but the lawyer remains sceptical it will go ahead", Forum 18 reported.

"One crucial document revealing the extent of military control over the supposedly-civilian alternative service was Order No. 142 issued by Deputy Defence Minister Mikael Harutyunyan on 20 December 2004. The minister ordered the military commissar and the military police to ensure military supervision weekly of all those performing alternative service, with monthly written reports to the Chief of the General Staff, and military searches for any who abscond. The order required the Head of the Mobilisation Administration of the General Staff to supervise the fulfilment of the order.

After all 22 Jehovah's Witnesses who had opted for alternative service abandoned it in spring and summer 2005, other Jehovah's Witness young men have refused to accept military service or the military-controlled alternative. Seventeen have been sentenced to prison terms of between one and two years since April 2005. Seven more were arrested and charged in December and January, with a further two charged but awaiting arrest at home."

On 23 February, Forum 18 reported on the fourth revision of Armenia's Alternative Service Law: "Alternative service, which the authorities were obliged to have introduced by January 2004, the third anniversary of Armenia's accession to the Council of Europe, eventually became available in the wake of parliament's highly reluctant adoption of an Alternative Service Law later in 2004. The Law - which came into force on 1 July 2004, and was amended by parliament on 22 November 2004 and again on 24 December 2004 - provides for 'alternative military service' of 36 months and 'alternative labour service' of 42 months, both under the ultimate oversight of the Defence Ministry, thus failing to meet Armenia's Council of Europe commitments."

"Unlike other officials, who try to pretend the alternative labour service is civilian, Justice Minister David Harutyunyan admitted that it is currently under military control, declaring: 'This is the practice, though not the law.' But he refused to accept that such military control is the main reason that the Jehovah's Witnesses reject it. 'To my mind there is no problem over who controls the alternative service, as long as the service itself is without weapons.'

Despite defending the current system, Harutyunyan insisted the government will eliminate "some contradictions" (which he did not specify) in its current preparation of amendments to the alternative service law."

Sources: Forum 18 News Service, 22 February 2006, 23 February 2006

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)

CO-UPDATE: the monthly email newsletter of War Resisters' International's The Right to Refuse to Kill programme || Index of past issues