On 7 June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights issued an important judgement (Teliatnikov v. Lithuania) in relation to the protection of the right of conscientious objection to military service under Article 9 of the European Human Rights Convention. 

In a new judgement of 20 July 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 9 (the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention of Human Rights, in the case of an Armenian conscientious objector from Nagorno-Karabakh who had been sentenced and imprisoned for refusing to perform military service.

On the 7^th of September 2020 the Grand Chamber panel of the European Court of Human Rights rejected the request to refer the case of Dyagilev v. Russia (no. 49972/16) to the Grand Chamber, thus rendering the judgement of 10 March 2020 final.

On 29th October, War Resisters' International (WRI), European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO), International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR) and Connection e.V. released a statement on a problematic judgment by the European Court of Human Rights on the case of a Russian conscientious objector, Maksim Andreyevich Dyagilev.

In October, the European Court of Human Rights in a ruling on the case of in the case of Adyan and others v. Armenia, criticised the state's alternative service system (which was in place until 2013), arguing that it was not genuinely civilian, and amounted to military service - albeit an unarmed one.

Published September 2015 - download here.

A factsheet has been published covering case law within the European Court of Human Rights and Selection of cases pending before the Court, relating to conscientious objection to military service.

Published September 2015 - download here.

A factsheet hsa been published covering case law within the European Court of Human Rights and Selection of cases pending before the Court, relating to conscientious objection to military service.

Since the 1950s, the right to conscientious objection to military service in international human rights law has excited the interest of both non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations in a variety of contexts. This book examines the subject, beginning with an exploration of the concept of conscience and its evolution with a view toward understanding the meaning and potential scope of the right to conscientious objection from a legal perspective. It also describes the different categories into which conscientious objectors can be divided, explain the differences between these categories, and investigate how these differences are interpreted at national and international levels. It then investigates the right to conscientious objection as a legitimate exercise of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in international human rights law. In this regard, this book deeply analyzes human rights law at both the international and regional level, examining UN, European, and Inter-American mechanisms.

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riLHRtZ4Biw width:400 height:300]

IFOR representiative Derek Brett gives an introduction to the status of conscientious objection in human rights law.

With thanks to Paul at Fourman Films for this: http://www.youtube.com/user/fourmanfilms

On 17 July, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in the case of Tarhan vs Turkey, again finding on a violation of article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in addition of article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman treatment) of the Convention.

The series of jurisprudence by international bodies in relation to conscientious objection in Turkey continued in the last months. Following the recent judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in cases of conscientious objectors from Turkey - Demirtaş v. Turkey from 17 January 2012 and Erçep v. Turkey from 22 November 2011, the Human Rights Committee published its views on the case of Turkish conscientious objectors Cenk Atasoy and Arda Sarkut in June.