A/HRC/35/4 European Court of Human Rights ruled that a violation of freedom of expression had occurred, ordering just satisfaction of €2,500 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant. The case concerned the applicant’s criminal conviction to a five-month prison sentence for having read out a statement to the press entitled: “We are in solidarity with the Israeli conscientious objectors”. 50. In Ukraine, a journalist was arrested in February 2015 on charges of high treason and preclusion of lawful activity of the Armed Forces of Ukraine for publishing an antimobilization video, in which he had announced his refusal to be called up and had appealed to others to do likewise. While the first instance court sentenced him to three years and six months of imprisonment, the appeal court overturned his conviction in July 2016. 70 C. Conscientious objection for those serving voluntarily in the armed forces 51. One contribution stressed that currently there were no provisions in the Greek legislation recognizing the right to conscientious objection for professional soldiers and that, additionally, such recognition was not possible in practice in view of a decision by the Minister of National Defence that established in 2005 that applications submitted after the enlistment in the Armed Forces of those interested were not accepted.71 D. Unjust procedures during application consideration 52. In its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Israel, adopted in October 2014, the Human Rights Committee remained concerned at the proceedings before the special committee in charge of recommending to the competent authorities whether to grant or reject an individual’s application for exemption from compulsory military service for reasons of conscience and at the special committee’s lack of independence, given that its membership comprised only one civilian member and all the rest served as officials of the armed forces. The Human Rights Committee recommended that the special committee should be made fully independent, and that proceedings before it should include hearings and provide for a right to appeal against negative decisions. 72 53. In November 2015, the Human Rights Committee reiterated its concerns to Greece about the composition of the special committee that assessed applications for conscientious objector status and its reported lack of independence and impartiality, especially when hearings were held without all members present, and recommended that Greece consider placing the assessment of such applications under the full control of civilian authorities. 73 In May 2016, two recommendations on conscientious objection were made in the context of the universal periodic review; however, Greece did not accept those recommendations. 74 In September 2016, for the first time, the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of a conscientious objector in a State that recognized conscientious objection. In the case of Papavasilakis v. Greece, the Court held that the lack of independence in the decisionmaking process meant that refusal to recognize the complainant’s application for conscientious objector status violated article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of 70 71 72 73 74 See contribution from War Resisters’ International; OHCHR reports on the human rights situation in Ukraine for the periods 16 February to 15 May 2015 (para. 72), 16 May to 15 August 2015 (para. 71), 16 August to 15 November 2015 (para. 63), 16 November 2015 to 15 February 2016 (para. 141), 16 February to 15 May 2016 (para. 117) and 16 May to 15 August 2016 (para. 115), available at www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/ENACARegion/Pages/UAReports.aspx. Contribution from the Greek National Commission for Human Rights. See CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 23. See CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2, paras. 37-38. See A/HRC/33/7, paras. 136.15 and 136.16 and A/HRC/33/7/Add.1, p. 3. During the second cycle of the universal periodic review, from 2012 to 2016, out of a total of 26 recommendations relating to conscientious objection, only 4 were accepted by the States under review, whereas 22 recommendations on conscientious objection were noted (see http://s.upr-info.org/2nTJXrY). 13