In the judgment of Grand Chamber made on July 7, 2011 connected with the case Bayatyan v. Armenia the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the conviction in 2003 of a conscientious objector - a Jehovah's Witness - for his refusal to perform military service. He was imprisoned despite Armenia's undertaking, when joining the Council of Europe on 25 January 2001, to introduce civilian service as an alternative to compulsory military service within three years and to pardon all conscientious objectors sentenced to imprisonment.

The applicant, Vahan Bayatyan, is an Armenian national, born in 1983. He is a Jehovah's Witness. Declared fit for military service when he was 17 years' old, Mr. Bayatyan became eligible for the spring draft of 2001. On 1 April 2001 he wrote to the General Prosecutor of Armenia, the Military Commissioner of Armenia and the Human Rights Commission of the National Assembly stating that, as a Christian, he could not do military service, but that he was prepared to do alternative civilian service. Aged 18, he was summonsed to appear for military service on 15 May 2001, but failed to turn up.

On 29 May 2001 the Commission for State and Legal Affairs of the National Assembly informed him that, since there was no law in Armenia on alternative service, he was obliged to serve in the army, because both the Armenian Constitution and the Military Liability Act required every fit man aged between 18 and 27 to do military service.

On 1 August 2001 criminal proceedings under Article 75 of the Criminal Code were brought against Mr. Bayatyan for draft evasion. In a judgment eventually upheld by the Court of Cassation in January 2003, Mr. Bayatyan was convicted of draft evasion and sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison. During his trial Mr. Bayatyan asked again to do alternative civilian service, submitting that it would be more productive to do socially useful work than spend time in prison.

He was imprisoned and, in July 2003, he was released on parole, after having served about ten-and-a-half months of his sentence. The Armenian Alternative Service Act, which provides for alternative civilian service for conscientious objectors, was passed on 17 December 2003 and entered into force on 1 July 2004. Mr. Bayatyan complained about his conviction for draft evasion, despite his objections on religious grounds, relying on Article 9.

His application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 July 2003 and declared admissible on 12 December 2006. In a judgment of 27 October 2009, the Chamber dealing with the case held that there had been no violation of Article 9. On 10 May 2010 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at Mr. Bayatyan's request. A public hearing was held in the Human Rights building in Strasbourg on 24 November 2010.

The Grand Chamber considered that Mr. Bayatyan's failure to report for military service was a manifestation of his religious beliefs. The Grand Chamber noted that Mr. Bayatyan, as a Jehovah's Witness, wanted to be exempted from military service, not for personal benefit or convenience, but, because of his religious convictions. The Grand Chamber therefore considered that the imposition of a penalty on Mr. Bayatyan, in circumstances where no allowances were made for his conscience and beliefs, could not be considered a measure necessary in a democratic society.

Concerning whether his conviction was "necessary in a democratic society" the Grand Chamber noted that almost all the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe which ever or still had compulsory military service had introduced alternatives to military service. Accordingly, a State which had not done so had to give convincing and compelling reasons to justify any interference with a person's right to freedom of religion.

The Court therefore considered that Mr. Bayatyan's conviction constituted an interference with his right to freedom of religion which was not necessary in a democratic society, in violation of Article 9.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Armenia was to pay Mr. Bayatyan 10,000 Euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

Full Report