International Fellowship Ofreconciliation(Ifor)

INTERNATIONAL FELLOWSHIP OFRECONCILIATION(IFOR)

and

CONSCIENCE AND PEACE TAX INTERNATIONAL (CPTI)

Submissiontothe105thSessionoftheHumanRightsCommittee

ARMENIA

(Militaryservice,conscientiousobjectionandrelatedissues)

UpdatedJune2012.Contact:

DerekBRETT

InternationalFellowshipof Reconciliation

MainRepresentativetotheUN,Geneva

Tel: (41)77 4629825

AfterconsideringtheInitialReportofArmeniaunderthe InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,theHumanRightsCommittee regretted “thelackoflegalprovisionforalternativestomilitaryserviceincaseofconscientiousobjection.” Theyalsodeplored “theconscriptionofconscientiousobjectorsbyforceandtheirpunishmentbymilitarycourts,andtheinstancesofreprisalsagainsttheirfamilymembers.”[1]

Asstatedin Paragraph 436 of Armenia's Joint Second and Third Periodic Report a “Law on alternative service” was adopted on 12 December 2003,[2]followingacommitmentmadeonaccessiontotheCouncilofEurope. Theaccountgiven in the State report isnothoweverentirelyaccurate;theLawconcernedhasnotbeenacceptedbytheCouncilofEuropeashonouringthecommitmentmade,whichwastobringinalaw “in compliance with European standards”. Evenaftertheamendmentsof2004and2006thealternativeserviceofferedisnotofaclearlyciviliannature,andtheconditions,particularlytheduration,areofapunitivenature.

Asked in the List of Issues what steps it intends to take to bring its legislation in this area fully into conformity with Articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant[3], Armenia reports that a draft law addressing relevant issues is currently before the National Assembly[4], but does not give enough details to confirm that all shortcomings of the existing provisions have been addressed.

Moreover,Armeniacontinuestoimprisonlargenumbersofconscientiousobjectors,overwhelminglyJehovah'sWitnesses,whorefusetoperformbothmilitaryserviceandthe(notgenuinelycivilian)alternative.

This submission also raises the implications of theinclusionofcompulsorymilitarytrainingintheschoolcurriculumandthehumanrightsofconscriptsservingintheArmenianarmedforces

Background:Armenia'sCommitmentstotheCouncilofEurope

.Armeniaoperatesasystemofobligatorymilitaryservice. Malecitizensbetweentheagesof18and27areliableto 24monthsmilitaryservice.

TheParliamentaryAssemblyoftheCouncilofEurope(CoE),inrecommendingtheadmissionofArmeniatomembershipoftheCoE, recorded:

“TheParliamentaryAssemblytakesnoteofthelettersfromthePresidentofArmenia,thespeakeroftheparliament,thePrimeMinisterandthechairmenofthepoliticalpartiesrepresentedintheparliament,andnotesthatArmeniaundertakestohonourthefollowingcommitments: (...)toadopt,withinthreeyearsofaccession,alawonalternativeserviceincompliancewithEuropeanstandards

and,inthemeantime,topardonallconscientiousobjectorssentencedtoprisontermsorserviceindisciplinarybattalions,allowingtheminsteadtochoose,whenthelawonalternativeservicehascomeintoforce,toperformnon-armedmilitaryserviceoralternativecivilianservice.”[5]

Armenia duly acceeded to CoE membership on 1st January 2001. A Law on Alternative Service was passed on 12th December 2003, and came into effect on 1st July 2004. On 27th January 2004, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe welcomed the adoption of this law, while considering “the length of the alternative civilian service, set at forty-two months, unacceptable and excessive”, and proceeded to state “It points out that Armenia undertook on joining the Council of Europe to pardon conscientious objectors serving prison terms. It expresses its indignation at the fact that twenty or so young people who refuse to perform military service are still in prison. It therefore demands that they be released immediately by presidential pardon pending the entry into force on 1 July 2004 of the law on alternative civilian service.”[6]

Thefirst23personstoenrolforalternativeserviceinArmeniastartedtheirplacementsearlyin2005. Bytheendoftheyear,however,all23hadwithdrawn,complainingthattheplacementswerenottrulycivilianinnatureandthattheyweretoallintentsandpurposestreatedasunarmedmembersofthemilitary. Twenty-twoofthe23 wereJehovah'sWitnesses,theother,PavelKaravanov,wasaMolokan,amemberofaRussianprotestantchurchfoundedinthe18thCentury,whosemembersareknownfortheirpacifism,andhadbeenexcusedmilitaryserviceinimperialdays. Karavanovremainstheonlynon-Jehovah'sWitnessconscientiousobjectorinArmeniatohavecometo our attention.

DespiteArmenia'sclaimthattheLawonAlternativeServicefulfilsitsaccessioncriteriatotheCouncilofEurope,itisclearthatthisLawdoes not meet therequirementofcomplyingwithEuropeanorinternationalstandards,andithasnotbeenaccptedbytheCouncilofEuropeitself.

In a resolution of January 2007,[7] the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was “disappointedtonotethatthecurrentlaw,asamendedin2005andsubsequentlyinJune2006,stilldoesnotofferconscientiousobjectorsanyguaranteeof"genuinealternativeserviceofaclearlyciviliannature,whichshouldbeneitherdeterrentnorpunitiveincharacter",asprovidedforbyCouncilofEuropestandards”.

TheLawwasalsosingledoutforcriticalcommentinaspeechbytheSecretaryGeneraloftheCouncilofEurope at Yerevan State University on 5th November 2007, in which he observed “Thelastamendmentstothelawdonotseemtosolvetheproblemsraisedinrespectofthelengthofalternativeserviceandthearrangementsforperformingit. Asamended,thelawstillfailstoofferconscientiousobjectorsany"genuinealternativeserviceofaclearlyciviliannature,whichshouldbeneitherdeterrentnorpunitiveincharacter",asprovidedbytheCouncilofEurope'sguidelinesonthissubject.ForArmeniatocomplywiththeundertakingmadeonaccession,thelawneedstobe"incompliancewithEuropeanstandards",andthisisnotyetthecase."[8]

Itisnotknownhowmanypersonshavecompletedalternativeservice,butaverylargenumberofconscientiousobjectorshaverefusedtoaccepttheserviceaslaidoutinthecurrentlegislation.

Shortcomingsofthe2003AlternativeServiceAct

TheprovisionsoftheAlternativeServiceActfailtomeetacceptedinternationalstandardsinseveralrespects,andnoneoftheamendmentspromulgatedtodatehaveeffectivelyaddressedtheseshortcomings.

UnderArticle14,allaspectsofthearrangementsareunderthecontroloftheMinistryofDefence. ApplicationsfromconscientiousobjectorstoperformAlternativeServiceareassessedby thelocaldraftcommission.

TheActdistinguishes “AlternativeMilitaryService” and “AlternativeCivilianService”. Thoseacceptedfor “AlternativeCivilianService” arereferredbytheMilitaryCommissariattotheHealthandSocialSecurityministriesforplacement. Thesupposedly “civilian” serviceishoweverunderclosemilitarysupervision.OrderNo.142,issuedbytheDeputyDefenceMinisteron20th December2004,orderedtheMilitaryCommissariatandtheMilitaryPolicetoensureweeklymilitarysupervisionofeveryoneperforming"civilian"alternativeservice,andtosubmitmonthlywrittenreportstotheChiefoftheGeneralStaff. Alldisciplinarybreacheswithinalternativeservice aredealtwithbytheMilitaryProsecutor'sOffice. Thoseperforming “civilian” serviceareevenfedmilitaryrations.

Article16.2oftheActstates “CitizensperformingalternativeservicemustswearanoathofallegiancebeforetheStatesymboloftheRepublicofArmeniainacceptanceoftheappropriateresponsibilities.” andArticle16.3stipulates “Thoseinalternativeservicemustwearauniform,theappearanceandinstructionsforwearingofwhichshallbestipulatedbytheGovernmentoftheRepublicofArmenia.” Apartfromdutiesofadirectmilitarynature,thesearethetwoaspectsofanyalternativeservicearrangementswhicharemostlikelytooffendtheconsciencesofobjectors

HadtherebeenadeliberateintentiontomaketheprovisionsunacceptabletoJehovah'sWitnesses,therequirementtoswearanoathwouldhavebeenchosen,as,alongwithotherdenominationswhoadheretoastrictreadingoftheNewTestament,Jehovah'sWitnessesareforbiddentodothis. The explicitrequirementtowearauniformidentifyingthoseperformingalternativeserviceshould alsobeclearlydistinguishedfromlegitimatespecificationsoftheclothingnecessarytoperformor(eg.inahospitalsituation)toidentifythespecificassignment.

Initially,theJehovah'sWitnessesinArmeniaexpressedtheirreliefthatthese specific provisions, both of whichwereproblematictothem,were apparently notbeingstictlyenforced.[9] Within months, however, the experience of conscientiousobjectors performing alternative service contradictedthis.

Thedurationof “MilitaryAlternativeService” issetat36months;thatof “CivilianAlternativeService” at42months. Theseare,respectively,1.5and1.75timesthelengthofthemilitaryservicetowhichtheobjectorwouldotherwisebeliable. Suchadiscrepancyisdiscriminatoryandpunitive. Boththetotaldurationof “CivilianAlternativeService”,andtheextent(18months)bywhichitexceedsthatofmilitaryservicearethelongestwhichcurrentlyapplyanywhereintheworld. ItwillberecalledthatinFoinvFrancetheHumanRightsCommitteefoundthatanydiscrepancyinlengthbetweenmilitaryandalternativeservicemustbejustifiedintheindividualcaseon “reasonableandobjectivecriteria”[10]

Duringalternativeservice,conscientiousobjectorshavenofreedomofmovement;evenoutsideworkhourstheycomeundertheauthorityofthedirectoroftheestablishmenttowhichtheyhavebeenassigned. Therewerereportsthatthishasbeenusedasafurthermeansofimposingarbitraryrestrictions,inparticularthatsomeJehovah'sWitnesseshavenotbeenpermittedtoleavetheestablishmenttoattendreligiousservices,indirectbreachoftheirfreedomofreligion.

Currentlegislativeproposals

InApril2011anumberoffreshamendmentstothe2003Actwerelaidbeforethenationalassembly. Askedforadvisoryopinionsontheproposedrevisions,both the Vienna Commission of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) criticised them as still not instituting a fully civilian service of a duration which is not punitive by comparison with military service.

Governmentsourcesclaimthat new amendments which fullyaddressthecriticismsvoicedbytheViennaCommissionandbytheOSCEhavenowbeendrafted.[11] It is to be hoped that it is these latest revisions to which reference is made in the written replies[12], but details would be welcome.

In particular, with reference to the written replies: does “the improvement of the order of discussing the applications for sending to alternative service” mean placing this decision under civilian control? Does “amending the time periods for alternative service” mean making these equal to those for military service? And will the “bodies responsible for alternative service and supervisory to the process of alternative service” be completely civilian in nature?

Imprisonment of conscientious objectors

Allimprisonmentsofconscientiousobjectors knowntoCPTIhaveoccurredunderArticle327.1oftheCriminalCode,whichreads “Evadingarecurringcalltoemergencymilitaryservice,oreducationalormilitarytraining,withoutalegalbasisforbeingrelievedofthisservice,shallincurafineintheamountof300to500minimumwagesorarrestforuptotwomonthsorimprisonmentforuptotwoyears.”

Twodistinctcategoriescanbeidentified. Thefirst,beforetheAlternativeServiceActcameintoforce,wereconscientiousobjectorswhowereimprisonedforrefusingmilitaryservicebecausetherewasnoalternative. ThesecondcategoryareobjectorswhoweresentencedaftertheActcameintoforcehavingrefusedbothmilitaryserviceandalternativeserviceundertheAct,whichtheydidnotconsidertoaddressthegroundsoftheirobjection.

NotonlydidArmeniafailtoimplementitsundertakingtopardonthoseconscientiousobjectorswhohadbeensentencedbeforeitwasadmittedtotheCouncilofEurope,itevencontinuedtoimprisonthosewhorefusedmilitaryservicewhiletheAlternativeServiceLawwasinpreparation. Despite thewordingoftheundertaking,no-onewasallowedtopostponecall-upinordertotakeadvantageoftheAlternativeServiceLawwhenitcameintoeffect.

Armenia has recently[13] claimed that 38 conscientious objectors were pardoned when the Act was adopted. But in fact the commitment had been to pardon all conscientious objectors, and pending – not upon - the adoption of the Act. As already noted, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, while welcoming the adoption of the Act, called for the immediate release of some 20 imprisoned conscientious objectors.[14] Nevertheless, convictionsandimprisonmentscontinued. Inthefirstfourmonthsof2004,atleasttenconscientiousobjectorsweresentencedtoimprisonment,andtwoothershadtheirsentencesincreasedonappeal.[15] Nor has there ever been any indication of retrospective pardons; as far as is known, all those imprisoned for refusing military service before any alternative was available continue to bear criminal records.

On7thJuly2011,theGrandChamberoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsdecidedbyamajorityof16to1(onlytheArmenianjudgedissenting)tooverturnanearlierdecisionoftheCourt'sThirdSectionandfoundtheimprisonmentofVahanBayatyan,whohadinApril2001refusedongroundsofconsciencetoperformmilitaryservicewhilestatinghiswillingnesstoperformalternativecivilianservice,tobeaviolationofArticle9(freedomofthought,conscienceandreligion)oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms.[16] On10th January2012,referringbacktotheGrandChamber'srulinginBayatyan,theCourtfoundtheconvictionandimprisonmentin2003fordraftevasionof two further declaredJehovah'sWitnessconscientiousobjectors toconstituteaviolationofArticle9.[17]

BayatyanvArmeniawasalandmarkdecisionintheEuropeanjurisprudence,followingalinesimilartothattakenbytheHumanRightsCommitteeinYoonChoivRepublicofKoreaandYungetalvRepublicofKorea,namelythatconscientiousobjectiontomilitaryservicewasheldtoconstituteamanifestationofreligionorbelief,andtheStatehadnotshownlegitimategroundsforlimitingthis. (InthesubsequentcaseofJeongetalvRepublicofKoreatheHumanRightsCommitteehasgonefarther,statingthatconscientiousobjectiontomilitaryserviceinheresinthefreedomofthoughtconscienceandreligion.)

Crucially,intheBayatyanjudgment,theCourtaddressedthewordingofArticle4oftheEuropeanConvention,whichisalmostidenticaltothatinArticle8oftheICCPR,andfoundthat “the Travaux préparatoires confirm that the sole purpose of sub-paragraph (b) of Article 4 § 3 is to provide a further elucidation of the notion “forced or compulsory labour”. In itself it neither recognises nor excludes a right to conscientious objection and should therefore not have a delimiting effect on the rights guaranteed by Article 9.” (para 100) Itnotedthatinstatepractice“at the material time there was already a virtually general consensus on the question in Europe and beyond.” (para 108). On this basis, “and in line with the “living instrument” approach,” the Court ruled unequivocally “that … Article 9 should no longer be read in conjunction with Article 4 § 3 (b).”(para 109).

This judgment did not however address two of the more egregious features of Bayatyan's situation; first that the sentence had been increased on appeal, partly on the grounds that “not only does [the applicant] not accept his guilt, but he does not regret having committed the crime” and “taking into account the nature, motives and degree of social danger of the crime”, and second his allegation that the appeal proceedings were conducted in a manner designed to put pressure on him to change his religion. These complaints had been summarily dismissed at the admissibility stage.[18]

Moreover,giventhatthefactsinBayatyandatedfrombeforetherewasanyalternativeinArmeniatoarmedmilitaryservice,thejudgmentdoesnotdirectlyaddresstheshortcomingsofthecurrentsituationofconscientiousobjectorsinArmenia. ThereishowevercontinutingrelevanceintheCourt'scommentthat “respectonthepartoftheStatetowardsthebeliefsofaminorityreligiousgroupliketheapplicant’sbyprovidingthemwiththeopportunitytoservesocietyasdictatedbytheirconsciencemight,farfromcreatingunjustinequalitiesordiscriminationasclaimedbytheGovernment,ratherensure cohesive and stable pluralism and promote religious harmony and tolerance in society.” (para 126)

WithinsixmonthsofthecomingintoforceoftheAlternativeServiceAct,threeJehovah'sWitnesseswereawaitingtrialforrefusingbothmilitaryandalternativeservice.[19] Sincethenthenumbersofimprisonmentshavesharplyincreased. Moreover, in December 2005 themaximumsentenceunderArticle327.1 has beenincreasedto36months. ByMay2007,theJehovah'sWitnessesreportedthat72oftheiryoungmenwereimprisoned inArmenia,havingrefusedbothmilitaryserviceandthenominalcivilianservice.[20] Thenumberimprisonedatanyonetime remainedmoreorlessconstantforthenextfouryears,sentencesrangingfrom12monthsto36months.Fulldetailshavenotbeentracedofthoseimprisonedinearlieryears,butanappendixliststhoseknowntohavecompletedtheirsentencessinceSeptember2009,orstillindetentionatthetimeofwriting.

The number of imprisoned conscientious objectors at any one time in Armenia is among the two or three highest totals to be found in any state in the world, and the sentences handed down are among the longest.

TheParliamentaryAssemblyoftheCouncilofEurope,inits2007resolution,[21]statedthat: “Itisdeeplyconcernedthat,forlackofagenuineformofcivilianservice,dozensofconscientiousobjectors,mostofwhomareJehovah'sWitnesses,continuetobeimprisoned,sincetheypreferprisontoanalternativeservicenotofatrulyciviliannature."andurgedtheArmenianauthorities

“topardontheyoungconscientiousobjectorscurrentlyservingprisonsentences”.

ThomasHammarberg,theCouncilofEurope'sCommissionerforHumanRights,metthreeoftheimprisonedJehovah'sWitnessesinArtikprisoninthenorth-westernregionofShirakduringhisJanuary2011visittoArmenia.Inhisreportpublishedon9thMayhecalledfortheconscientiousobjectorstobefreedfromprison,andforagenuinecivilianalternativeservicetobeintroduced.[22]

On 22nd August 2011, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, together with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, and the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, sent a communication[23] to the government of Armenia regarding the “allegedarbitrarydetentionandharassmentofmembersoftheJehovah'sWitnessescommunity,” includingthecontinuedimprisonment of 72 listed Jehovah's Witnesses, plus three others believed to be in pre-trial detention, for their conscientious objection to military service.

“It has been reported,” the communication stated, that “that (these) individuals have been charged under the Armenian Criminal Code for their conscientious objection to military service on religious grounds.Despite the decision of 7 July 2011, by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bayatyan vs. Armenia (application no. 23459/03), it has been reported that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses continue to be imprisoned for their refusal to engage in military service on religious grounds.”

The communication also gave details of a number of religious meetings and conventions of the Jehovah's Witnesses which had been ca ncelled “allegedly due to pressure from Government officials and from priests of the Armenian Apostolic Church.”

While asking for more information on the facts, and “(w)ithout expressing at this stage an opinion on the facts of the case and on whether the detention of the 72 abovementioned conscientious objectors is arbitrary or not,” the Special Procedures appealed to the Armenian Government “to take all necessary measures to guarantee their right not to be deprived arbitrarily of their liberty and to fair proceedings before an independent and impartial tribunal, in accordance with articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” and more generally “to ensure the right to freedom of religion or belief in Armenia, in accordance with articles 18 of the UDHR and of the ICCPR, respectively.” Similar appeals were made with regard to the rights of minorities and the freedom of assembly. Finally, the Armenian Government was specifically asked “Please explain how the imprisonment of the above mentioned individuals for their refusal to engage in military service on religious grounds is compatible with international human rights standards, including on freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

Armenia's reply to the communication reached the OHCHR on 1st February 2012, one day too late to be included in the documentation for the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council. The response itself is unimpressive. Despite the years of criticism of the inadequacy of the 2003 Act, it repeats the claim that this represented Armenia's full compliance with its accession commitment, and also implies that the commitment was fully honoured with regard to the pardoning of conscientious objectors. Regarding Bayatyan, it rehearses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights “that Article 9 does not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief” and reiterates the spurious argument put forward before the Grand Chamber that “at the time when the applicant was convicted for refusing to serve in the armed forces because of his religious beliefs, there was an explicit case-law according to which the Convention and its Protocols did not guarantee, as such, any right to conscientious objection. The National Authorities cannot be blamed for following the existing case-law and not implementing an approach reflecting developments which only came about at a later date.” This assumes that the only environment in which the “National Authorities” were operating was that of ancient jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It ignores all the non-judicial developments at both the international and European level, the latter already incorporated in the “political” commitments Armenia had entered into when joining the Council of Europe. It ignores also the fact that the Court itself, in Thlimmenos v Greece, had already acknowledged a need to reconcile the apparent conflict between different articles of the Convention which lay behind the early jurisprudence. Regarding the currently-imprisoned conscientious objectors it observes that they had refused both military and alternative service, and comments simply, “Article 9 of the [European] Convention does not give conscientious objectors the right to be exempted from both military or substitute civilian service. Nor does it prevent a State from imposing sanctions on those who refuse such service.” By referring only to the narrow jurisprudence under the European Convention, the reply does not address the more detailed international standards as for instance embodied in UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1998/77, which recommends that States “provide for conscientious objectors various forms of alternative service which are compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection (...) and not of a punitive nature”(OP4) and “emphasizes that States should take the necessary measures to refrain from subjecting conscientious objectors to imprisonment...”

Similarly,thelegalisticresponsetothequestionsregardingfreedomofassemblyandassociationdoesnotservetodispelthattheJehovah'sWitnessescommunitythereissubjectedtowidespreaddiscrimination,whichmaybelargelyareactiontotheirknownoppositiontomilitaryservice.

More encouraging is that in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief in the subsequent meeting of the Human Rights Council, referring to the communication, the Armenian representative referred to the draft amendments to the Law, which “had been discussed with representatives of religious groups interested in the alternative service” and expressed confidence that with the reforms the law would become “more comprehensive”. Even more encouragingly, in practice Armenia has refrained from creating any fresh violations since the date of the communication. Several of the imprisonments mentioned in the communication had taken place in the month following the Bayatyan judgement, and one further conscientious objector had been convicted early in August 2011, before the communication was sent but too late to be included in the list. That is however the last case to have been reported. The number of imprisoned conscientious objectors has therefore been gradually declining as individuals complete their sentences. At the end of May 2012, the total was 39, with two more due to be released in June.

On the other hand, the respite could prove to be temporary. There have been no reports of conscientious objectors being released before completing their entire sentences, and five of those currently imprisoned are not due for release until 2014. (See table in Appendix). It is believed that a number of prosecutions are pending, but the trials are repeatedly being adjourned.[24] Appeals have been lodged to halt some of the pending prosecutions, but the only one yet to have been decided was rejected. [25]

The indication in the replies to the List of Issues, that “supplements are planned in the (…) Criminal Code, by which, people whohave committed an action defined by Article 327 (...) because of their religion and beliefsbefore 1 May 2012, are released from criminal liability or punishment, if before 1 August 2012 they submit an application about taking on an alternative service.”,[26] whether or not this provision has actually taken effect, does not in any way address the conscientious objections involved, simply providing a belated opportunity to recant. In this it is tantamount to coercion to change religion or belief.

Continuing restrictions of civil rights

.No cases have been reported where, after serving a long prison sentence, a conscientious objector has been convicted of continued refusal to perform military service. However after release conscientious objectors find that their civil rights are restricted in other ways. A number have been refused identity documents (internal passports) because they were not given a document of registration by the military commissariat. The identity documents are necessary for such things as employment or marriage. Others, who possessed identity documents, were refused residency registration, a requirement in Armenia.[27]

The one encouraging feature of the draft amendments to the Alternative Service Act which were put before Parliament in 2011 was that they included a provision that those completing alternative service would be issued with the “Military Booklet”.[28] As this is often required in order to obtain work, this is a rare respect in which conscientious objectors would not complain about not being distinguished from military conscripts.

The situation of conscientious objectors in Nagorno-Karabakh

Although Armenia does not itself claim title to Nagorno-Karabakh, it remains the only member state of the United Nations to have recognised the de facto government of this secessionist territory within Azerbaijan. It may therefore be noted that Nagorno-Karabakh in 2003 adopted the Criminal Code of Armenia, and that conscientious objectors to military service there are prosecuted under the same Article, No. 127 as in Armenia.[29]

The Nagorno-Karabakh army was believed in 2007 to have a strength of between 18,500 and 20,000 personnel, over half of whom were Armenian nationals, the remainder largely conscripted from within the territory. The Law on Military Obligations of 2001 requires all males to undergo medical examination at the age of 16 to assess their fitness to perform the obligatory two years' military service between the age of 18 and 27.[30] There are no provisions allowing for conscientious objection.

Between 2001 and 2005 at least four Jehovah's Witnesses conscientious objectors were sentenced under Article 127.[31] The most recent of them, Areg Hovhanesyan, received a maximum sentence which was doubled to four years under the declared state of emergency; in 2008 an appeal for early release was turned down and the court ordered his “re-education”.[32] Hovhanesyan was finally released in February 2009, but there have been two subsequent imprisonments. Armen Mirzoyan, a Baptist who does not object to military service but refuses to bear arms or take the military oath was sentenced to one year's imprisonment on 30th June 2010 under Article 364.1 of the criminal code “refusal to perform military duties”[33] Following his release, and various threats of fresh prosecution, it seems that he has eventually been allowed to perform unarmed service in a medical unit stationed in occupied Azerbaijani territory outside the border of Nagorno-Karabakh.[34] His older brother Gagik Mirzoyan, had gone through a similar experience, having been beaten and imprisoned under Article 364.1, but ultimately allowed to perform unarmed military service, from which he was released in January 2008.[35] Most recently, on 30th December 2011, a further Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector, Karen Harutyunyan, was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment under Article 127.[36]

Military training in schools

According to the Child Soldiers Global Report 2008,[37] training in the handling of automatic weapons is compulsory for both sexes in grades 8 and 9 of secondary school, ie. from approximately the age of 16. No provisions are reported which would allow children themselves to opt out of such training, or their parents to withdraw them, on grounds of conscience. The same source also quotes reports of a programme in schools for disadvantaged children in which such weapons training begins as young as 11 years old. In September 2005 Armenia ratified the OptionalProtocoltotheConventionontheRightsoftheChildon theinvolvementofchildreninarmedconflict,butithasyettoreporttotheCommitteeontheRightsoftheChildundertheOptionalProtocol.

Human rights within the Armenian armed forces[38]

The human rights of those who join the armed forces are no less important than those of conscientious objectors. In this respect, concern is growing about the high rate of non-conflict deaths in the Armenian armed forces.