A/HRC/23/22 14. The former Commission on Human Rights adopted a series of resolutions recognizing a right to conscientious objection to military service,12 and the Human Rights Council in its resolution 20/2 recalled all previous resolutions and decisions concerning the recognition of conscientious objection to military service. 15. A number of States do not acknowledge that there is a universally applicable right to conscientious objection. For example, Singapore indicated in its submission that it did “not agree with the premise of resolution 20/2” and further stated that “Singapore would like to reiterate the reasons why it does not recognise the universal applicability of the right to conscientious objection to military service. The resolution 20/2 goes beyond what is prescribed in international law and applicable human rights instruments.” Singapore further indicated that “Article 29 of the UDHR and Article 18 of the Covenant recognise that the exercise of the rights and freedoms of an individual are subject to the necessity of ensuring public order and the general welfare of the society. National defence is a fundamental sovereign right under international law. Where individual beliefs or actions run counter to such a right, the right of a State to preserve and maintain national security must prevail.” 13 16. At the regional level, the European Court of Human Rights decided in Bayatyan v. Armenia,14 a Grand Chamber judgment, that a right to conscientious objection to military service exists based on article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which indicates that, “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. The European Court of Human Rights wrote that, “opposition to military service, where it is motivated by a serious and insurmountable conflict between the obligation to service in the army and a person’s conscience or his deeply and genuinely held religious or other beliefs, constitutes a conviction or belief of sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance to attract the guarantees of Article 9”. 17. The Court found that the failure of the applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness, “to report for military service was a manifestation of his religious beliefs. His conviction for draft evasion therefore amounted to an interference with his freedom to manifest his religion as guaranteed by Article 9, para. 1” (para. 112). The Court also found that, “since no alternative civilian service was available in Armenia at the material time, the applicant had no choice but to refuse to be drafted into the army if he was to stay faithful to his convictions and, by doing so, to risk criminal sanctions” (para. 124). 18. The Court’s judgment in Bayatyan v. Armenia has been followed in subsequent cases by the European Court of Human Rights. For example, in 2011, a Chamber Judgment of the Court found in Erçep v. Turkey15 that the applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness, had the right to conscientious objection. The Court took the view that the numerous convictions imposed on the applicant because of his beliefs, amounted to a violation of article 9 of the 12 13 14 15 6 See Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2004/35, 2002/45, 2000/34, 1998/77, 1995/83, 1993/84, 1991/65, 1989/59 and 1987/46, all of which recognized the right to conscientious objection. With the exception of the Commission resolution 1987/46, which was adopted by a vote of 26 in favour, 2 against and 14 abstentions, all other Commission resolutions were adopted without a vote. This objection to the universal applicability of a right to conscientious objection has been continuous by some States. For example, in its reply to a request for information for a report on conscientious objection prepared by OHCHR in 2006, Singapore stated that Commission “resolution 2004/35 goes beyond what is prescribed in the international law and the applicable human rights instruments.” See analytical report of OHCHR on best practices in relation to conscientious objection to military service (E/CN.4/2006/51), para. 18. Similarly, in a joint letter to the Commission dated 24 April 2002, 16 Member States, including Singapore stated that they did “not recognise the universal applicability of conscientious objection to military service” (E/CN.4/2002/188). Application No. 23459/03, Judgement of 7 July 2011. Application No. 43965/04, Chamber Judgement of 22 November 2011.