European Court of Human Rights
10 March 2020
Facts
The applicant refused to perform military service in Russia due to his pacifist beliefs and applied to perform alternative civilian service instead. His request was examined by a commission but was rejected on the grounds that his beliefs were not sufficiently proven. The applicant was called up for military service and, after refusing to serve, was prosecuted.
Complaint
The applicant complained that the Russian authorities had unjustifiably rejected his request to perform alternative civilian service, thereby violating his right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion under Article 9 of the Convention.
Court decision
The Court recognised that Article 9 of the Convention protects the right to refuse military service on the basis of religious or philosophical beliefs. It stated that states may require individuals to demonstrate the seriousness, consistency, and sincerity of their beliefs. In this case, the Court noted that Russia provided the possibility to perform alternative civilian service and that the national authorities had duly assessed the applicant’s arguments:
- the applicant’s request was examined with his participation, allowing him to present his arguments
- the responsible commission had the authority to collect evidence on its own initiative
- the commission’s composition ensured that military members did not form a majority
- the commission’s decision could be appealed before a court
The Court observed that the Russian system for examining requests to replace compulsory military service with alternative civilian service allowed for broad consideration of individual circumstances and included sufficient procedural safeguards to ensure a fair process. Accordingly, the Court found no violation of the Convention rights.