AMNE5TY !NTEPNAT!

DNAL
PUBL!0 5TATEMENT
Index. EUR 44/0T9/20TT
T6 December 20TT
Turkey stiII faiIing to respect the right to conscientious objection
Turkey faed Lo presenL a requesLed reporL on Lhe progress of Lhe mpemenLaLon of a 2006
European CourL decson on Lhe rghL Lo conscenLous ob|ecLon Lo Lhe aLesL CommLLee of
MnsLers Human RghLs MeeLng aL Lhe Counc of Europe whch Look pace beLween Lhe 28
November and 2 December. RecenLy, severa governmenL mnsLers have made pubc
sLaLemenLs abouL Lhe reform of compusory mLary servce, ndcaLng LhaL Lhey are unkey Lo
ncude ega provsons, recognzng for Lhe rghL Lo conscenLous ob|ecLon.
In Ls decson on 2 December 20TT, Lhe CommLLee of MnsLers reLeraLed Lher ca on
Turkey 'Lo Lake concreLe acLon and provde Langbe nformaLon Lo Lhe CommLLee of
MnsLers, on Lhese quesLons wLh a cear Lme-Labe for Lhe necessary measures Lo be Laken n
Lhe form of an acLon pan` by Lher nexL meeLng n March 20T2.
In Lhe 2006 case UIke vs Turkey, Lhe European CourL of Human RghLs found LhaL 'LhaL Lhe
appcanL`s repeaLed convcLons and mprsonmenL for havng refused Lo perform compusory
mLary servce on accounL of hs beefs as a pacfsL and conscenLous ob|ecLor amounLed Lo
degradng LreaLmenL wLhn Lhe meanng of ArLce 3 of Lhe ConvenLon.`
Turkey has a ong hsLory of voaLng Lhe rghL Lo refuse compusory mLary servce for reasons
of conscence as ad down n a number of nLernaLona human rghLs nsLrumenLs, whch Lhe
counLry s a parLy Lo.
AmnesLy InLernaLona cas on Turksh auLhorLes Lo ensure Lhs rghL s fuy recognzed and
mpemenLed wLhouL deay
0n 23 November 20TT, Lhe European CourL of Human RghLs rued agansL Turkey n Lhe case
of Yunus Erep, a Jehovah`s wLness and a conscenLous ob|ecLor who was repeaLedy
prosecuLed by Lhe auLhorLes for exercsng hs rghL Lo conscenLous ob|ecLon. The CourL
found LhaL Turkey had voaLed Yunus Erep`s rghL Lo freedom of LhoughL, conscence and
regon as proLecLed under ArLce 9 of Lhe ConvenLon.
AmnesLy InLernaLona members and supporLers n over 70 counLres n every regon of Lhe
word came LogeLher aL Lhe begnnng of December Lo demand LhaL Lhe Turksh auLhorLes
mmedaLey sLop Lhe prosecuLons of conscenLous ob|ecLors and Lo nLroduce an aLernaLve
cvan servce for conscenLous ob|ecLors n ne wLh European and nLernaLona sLandards
and recommendaLons.
They have been cang for Ha Savda, a human rghLs defender and conscenLous ob|ecLor, Lo
be free Lo conLnue pubshng arLces and makng pubc speeches n supporL of conscenLous
ob|ecLors, wLhouL fear of prosecuLon or nLmdaLon.
Ha Savda faces an ongong rsk of mprsonmenL for freey expressng hs supporL for
conscenLous ob|ecLors. He has been arresLed and -LreaLed on muLpe occasons snce
2004 for refusng Lo perform mLary servce, and has been deLaned for around T7 monLhs n
LoLa durng LhaL Lme. He has wrLLen arLces, gven nLervews n a number of newspapers and
made speeches aL proLesLs and meeLngs agansL compusory mLary servce.
Ha Savda currenLy faces Lhree separaLe charges under ArLce 3T8 of Lhe Turksh Pena
Code, whch crmnazes "aenaLng Lhe pubc from mLary servce and, n November 20T0,
was senLenced Lo T00 days n prson for hs peacefu acLvLes, and may be forced Lo begn
servng Lhs senLence aL any Lme.
Turkey s one of Lhe asL counLres n Europe LhaL does noL aow Ls cLzens Lo acL accordng Lo
Lher conscence n reaLon Lo mLary servce. They musL be gven Lhe choce of a non-punLve
cvan servce and be abe Lo express Lher vews freey.
Background
UIke vs. Turkey (AppIcatcn nc. 547/5S)
In Ls |udgmenL, Lhe CourL found LhaL Lhe appcanL`s repeaLed convcLons and mprsonmenL
for havng refused Lo perform compusory mLary servce on accounL of hs beefs as a pacfsL
and conscenLous ob|ecLor amounLed Lo degradng LreaLmenL wLhn Lhe meanng of ArLce 3
of Lhe ConvenLon,
The CourL found LhaL Lhe exsLng egsaLve framework was nsuffcenL, as Lhere was no
specfc provson n Turksh aw governng Lhe sancLons for Lhose who refused Lo perform
mLary servce on conscenLous or regous grounds and LhaL Lhe ony reevanL appcabe
rues appeared Lo be Lhe provsons of Lhe MLary Crmna Code, whch made any refusa Lo
obey Lhe orders of a superor an offence,
rep vs. Turkey (AppIcatcn Nc. 45oo/U4)
The CourL rued n ne wLh asL summer`s |udgmenL aL Lhe 0rand Chamber on Lhe BayaLyan
vs. Armena case, fndng LhaL Turkey had voaLed ArLce 9 n Lhe case of Lhe Jehovah`s
wLness conscenLous ob|ecLor.
The CourL found no reason Lo doubL LhaL Lhe appcanL`s ob|ecLon was moLvaLed by sncere
regous convcLons whch were n serous and nsurmounLabe confcL wLh hs obgaLon Lo
perform mLary servce.
End/