A/HRC/23/22 European Convention on Human Rights (“European Convention”). In addition, the Court found a violation of the right to fair trial. The Court determined that, despite being accused of an offence under the Military Criminal Code, the applicant was, for criminal law purposes, not a member of the armed forces but a civilian. The Court found that his trial as a civilian before a military court was a violation of his right to fair trial. 19. In 2012, in Bukharatyan v. Armenia16 and Tsaturyan v. Armenia,17 the Court found violations of the applicants’ right to conscientious objection to military service based on the judgment rendered in Bayatyan v. Armenia. Also in 2012, the Court, in Feti Demirtaş v. Turkey,18 found that the right to conscientious objection to military service of the applicant had been violated. The Court found a violation of article 6 of the European Convention which guarantees the right to fair trial since the applicant had been incorporated into the army against his will and then tried by a military court on nine charges of persistent disobedience relating to successive incidents when he had refused to put on a military uniform. The Court also found a breach of article 3 of the European Convention prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in relation to his treatment in detention for 554 days. 20. In 2012, the Court applied the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Bayatyan v. Armenia in two additional cases, Savda v. Turkey19 and Tarhan v. Turkey,20 and found violations of article 9 of the European Convention. These were the first “secular” cases addressed by the Court which did not involve Jehovah’s Witnesses. In Savda v. Turkey, the applicant, a Kurd, had been subject to repeated call-ups, prosecutions and imprisonment. The Court also found violations of the European Convention’s article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) and article 6 (right to a fair trial). The judgment also noted that the applicant’s case was characterized by an absence of a procedure on the part of the State to examine his request for recognition of conscientious objector status, and consequently his request was never examined by the authorities who made use of criminal law provisions penalizing his refusal to carry out military service. The Court emphasized the State’s obligation to provide a framework to protect the rights of individuals who would like to make a claim of conscientious objection to military service. 21. Although article 9 of the European Convention does not specifically mention conscientious objection to military service, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does. In its article 10 providing for the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, paragraph two states that, “The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right”. 22. Other regional instruments recognize the right to freedom of conscience and belief, such as the American Convention on Human Rights (art. 12) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (art. 8), but neither specifically mentions the right to conscientious objection to military service. 23. One intergovernmental convention, the Ibero-American Convention on the Rights of Young People, does provide specific protection for the right of conscientious objection to military service. Article 12, paragraph 1, states that, “Youth have the right to make conscientious objection towards obligatory military service”. 16 17 18 19 20 Application No. 37819/03, Chamber Judgement of 10 January 2012. Application No. 37821/03, Chamber Judgement of 10 January 2012. Application No. 5260/07, Chamber Judgement of 17 January 2012. Application No. 42730/05, Chamber Judgement of 12 June 2012. Application No. 9078/06, Chamber Judgement of 17 July 2012. 7