clr/1983/1983_2_374.pdf

(1983)1983 November 4 [HADJIANASTASSIOU, STYLIANIDES A N D PIKIS, JJJ MICHAEL ANDREOU PITSILLTDES AND ANOTHER, Appellants, v. THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. (Criminal Appeals Nos. 4408 and 4411). Military service—National Guard—Liability to serve in—Created by section Aof the National Guard Laws, 1964-1981 and general call-up governed by s. 6

(1){2) and <4) of the Law—Appellants called upfar service by order made under s. 6

(4)of the Law and they failed to enlist as directed in the order—They cannot take 5 availof circular., addressedby the Minister to the Military Authorities to the effect that indulgence would be extended to those not enlistingan thedate specified in theaboveorderbecauseappellants not onlyfailed to enlist as specified in the order but they did not enfist at all 10 National Guard Laws, 1964-1981—"Reasonable cause" in section 22(

1. a)of the Law—Meaning—Religious beliefs and grounds of conscience of appellants are not "reasonable cause" if the Law does not otherwise absolve them from criminal liability due to such beliefs. 15 Words and phrases—"Reasonable cause" in section 22(
2. a)of the National Guard Laws, 1964-1981. Constitutional Law—Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion—Article 18.1 of the Constitution—Limitations to, ^o as are prescribed by Law in Article 18.6—Should be necessary in the interests, inter alia, of the security of the Republic—Final arbiter to pronounce on the existence of this necessity are the Courts—Circumstances of inswgence during the last 20 years and foreign military occupation of part of Cyprus justify the ~< limitation of the right to freedom of religion and conscience by the imposition of compulsorymilitary serviceunderthe National 374 2 C.L.R. PitsMides and Another v. Republic Guard Laws, 1964-1981—Which are not contrary to Article 18 of the Constitution. Military Service—Conscientious objection to, because of appellant's religious conviction as witness of Jehovah—National Guard Laws, 1964-1981 providing for compulsory military service —Not contrary to Article 18of the constitution, whichsafeguards the right tofreedom of thought, conscience and religion because compulsory military service is justified by the circumstances prevailing in Cyprus since 1963. 5 10 The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Militaiy Court to 12 months' and 10months'imprisonment, respectively, of the offence of not joining the National Guard when called up, contrary to section 22(a)* of theNational Guard Laws, 1964 -1981. The particulars of the offence were that on the 12th day of January, 1983,whilst they were liable for military service and duly called up to join the National Guard, failed to do so without reasonable cause. On being formally charged in respect of this offence, the appellants replied that the reason for not enlisting was because, being Jehovah witnesses, their conscience did not allow them to take up arms. 15 20 The appellants were Greek Cypriots and they were of such age that they had the obligation to serve in the National Guard under s.4(
3. l)of the relevant Law. By decision of the Council of Ministers No. 22526 dated 9.12.1982 published in the Official Gazette under Not. No. 183,Supplement No. HI, and an Order of the Minister of Defence issued under s.6

(4)dated 14.12.1982 published in Supplement No. Ill, Part II, to the Official Gazette of 17.12.1982, Not. 1422, they had to attend for enlistment at Paphos and Larnaca KEN, respectively, on 12th January, 1983. The appellants failed to comply with the call-up Order and they did not join the National Guard. 25 30 Upon appeal against conviction counsel for the appellants mainly contended: (

1. a)That the appellants committed no offence by not • Section 22(
2. a)provides as follows: "22(
3. a)Anyone who is obliged to do so fails without reasonable cause, theburden of proof beingon him,to comply with anyorder of calluporbedoesnotattendwithinthetimelimitsprescribedinthecallup , is guilty of an offence ". 375 PitsilUdes and Another v. Republic

(1983)enlisting in the National Guard on 12.1.1983, having regard to the true construction of the circular* of the Minister of Defence dated 12.1.1983. (

1. b)That thereligiousbeliefandconscienceofthe appellants constitute a reasonable cause that absolves them from criminal liability; and, 5 (
2. c)That compulsory military service is repugnant to Art. 18** of the Constitution of the Republic, enshrining and safeguarding freedom of religion and conscience. Held,

(1)that the liability of a person for service in the 10 National Guard is created by section 4 of the Law; that the general call-up is made by the decision of the Council of Ministers and the other arrangements—date, place etc.—by Order of the Minister under section 6

(4); that the Order ofthe Minister, aspublished inthe Gazette,isclear and definite; 15 that the said circular wasaddressed to KEN Paphos and KEN Lamaca, and was not issued by virtue of the power vested in the Minister under the relevant Law; that it was not published in the Official Gazette and it wasnot brought to the knowledge or attention of anyone except the appropriate military author- 20 ities; that it was, therefore, not an Order in the sense of s.6

(4)oftheLaw, and it did not and couldnot modify or amend Order 1422 published in the Official Gazette; that it was only an administrative direction whereby indulgence would be extended to those not enlisting on the date specified in the Order but on 25 any subsequent date, at anyratenot laterthanthe 17thJanuary, 1983; that the responsibility of the appellants under the Law wastojoin on 12th January, 1983;that they failed to do so on that date and needless to say that they did notjoin at all; and that, therefore, it is not permissible for them to contend that 30 the indulgence of the circular of the Minister is of any avail to them; that theelement necessary for the offence wascomplete on 12th January, 1983; accordingly contention (a) should fail. * This circular which is quoted at pp. 379-381 post., directed that the conscripts of 83 A/ESSO, called for enlistment in the National Guard from 12th-14th January, 1983, if they attended on a different date from that appointed in his Order but within the period of enlistment, to be admitted independently of the date of their attendance,and furthermore no consequences to follow if they attended out of time but at any rate not later than the 17th January, 1983. • · Article 18 is quoted at pp. 383-384 post. 376 2 CUR. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Pitsillides and Another v. Republic

(2)That "reasonable" is a relative term and there must be bona fides; for the cause to be reasonable there must be good faith in it; it must be objectively fair; that the "cause" must be one that is not contrary to or incompatible with the Law of the land; that the religious beliefs and grounds of conscience of the appellants by themselves are not "reasonable cause"' ifthe Law does not otherwise absolve them from criminal liability due lo such beliefs; that as, however, they are not exempted due to such cause from service, they failed to discharge the burden cast on them; accordingly contention (b) should fail.

(3)That the limitations to be prescribed by Law,under Article 18.6 of the Constitution to which "freedom to manifest one*> religion or belief shall be subject" should be necessary in ti-.e interests, inter alia, of the security of the Republic; thai the final arbiter to pronounce on the existence of the necessity are the Courts of each State; that to ascertain whether it was necessan to introduce permissible limitations regard must be had to the national realities at the time of the enactment and subsequent thereto; that in the Republic of Cyprus for the last 20 years an insurgence is.going on; that for a decade—from 1964-1974 this country was living under the threat and danger of foreign invasion by a neighbouring country; that in 1974Cyprus became the victim ofthat threatened invasion and ever sincethis invasion a substantial part of the area of the Republic—about 37",,—is under foreign military occupation; that the very existence of the State continues to be under express or latent danger; thai these circumstances do justify the linutation of the right to freedom of religion and conscience by the imposition of compulsory military service; that in the preamble to Law 20/64 it is plainly stated that the National Guard was established for ihe defence of the Republic;'that so long as the National Guard is used for the defence and security of the country, the Law imposing the obligation for military service on the citizens ol Cyprus, irrespective of whether the .right to religion and conscience is restricted, is not unconstitutional; according!) contention (c) should, also, fail. Appeal dismissed. Observations: We trust that the appropriate Authorities of the Republic will, if and when in the future the circumstances of the country permit it, consider the 377 Pitsillides and Another v. Republic

(1983)exemption ofconscientious objection from compulsory military service and/or the imposition of alternative service. Cases referred to: Grandrath v. FederalRepublicof Germany, (Application No. 2299/64)ofthe European Commission and Court of Human Rights. 5 Appeal against conviction. AppealagainstconvictionbyMichaelA.Pitsillidesand Another who were convicted on the 16th May, 1983by a Military Court 10 sitting at Nicosia (Criminal Cases Nos. 131/83 and 92/83) on one count of the offence of not joining the National Guard when called up contrary to section 22(

1. a)of the National Guard Law, 1964(Law No. 20of 1964as amended) and were sentenced to 12 months' and 10 months' imprisonment respectively. 15 L.N. derides, for the appellants. 67. Tamassios, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. HADJIANASTASSIO", J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Stylianides. 20 STYLIANIDES, J.: The appellants were convicted and sentenced to 12months* and 10months' imprisonment, respectively, by the Military Court of the offence of not joining the National Guard when called up, contrary to section 22(
2. a)of the National Guard Law No. 20 of 1964, as amended by Laws 1964-1981. 25 The particulars of the offence, as set out in the charge-sheet, are that the accused on the 12th day of January, 1983, whilst they were liable for military service and duly called up to join the National Guard, failed to do so without reasonable cause. These appeals were directed originally against both conviction 30 and sentence but in the course of the hearing learned counsel for the appellants, rightly in our view, with the leave of the Court withdrew the appeal against sentence. The facts of both appeals are identical. The appellants are Greek Cypriots. They are of such age that they have the 35 obligation to serve in the National Guard under s.4(
3. l)of the relevant Law. By decision of the Council of Ministers No. 378 2 C.L.R. Pitsillides and Another v. Republic Stylianides J. 22.526 dated 9.12.1982 published in the Official Gazette under Not. No. 183,Supplement No.Ill, and an Order of the Minister of Defence issued under s. 6

(4)dated 14.12.1982 published in Supplement No. Ill, Part II, to the Official Gazette of 5 17.12.1982, Not. 1422, they should attend for enlistment at Paphos and Larnaca KEN, respectively, on 12th January. 1983. The appellants failed to comply with the call-up Order and they did not join the National Guard. On being formally charged in respect of this offence, the appellants replied that 10 the reason for not enlisting is because, being Jehovah witnesses. their conscience does not allow them to take up arms. The grounds of appeal, as ultimately argued before us, are:- 15

(1)The appellants committed no offence by not enlisting in the National Guard on 12.1.1983, having regard to the true construction of the circular of the Minister of Defence dated 12.1.1983 (exhibit No. 8);

(2)The religious belief and conscience of the appellants constitute a reasonable cause that absolves them from criminal liability; and, 20

(3)Compulsory military service is repugnant to Art. 18 of the Constitution of the Republic, enshrining and safeguarding freedom of religion and conscience. GROUND No. 1: The Minister of Defence for administrative purposes issued 25 the following circular (exhibit No. 8):"ΕΠΕΙΓΟΝ ΠΡΟΣ: Τα KEN Λάρνακα? και ΠάφουκαιόλαταΣ. Γραφεία ΥΠΟΥΡΓΕΙΟ ΑΜΥΝΗΣ ΓΕΝ,ΕΠΙΤ. ΕΘΝ. ΦΡΟΥΡΑΣ ΔΝΣΗ ΣΤΡΑΤΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΥ/Ι Τηλ. 43061 ΚΟΙΝ: Υπουργείο Αμυνη*/ Γραφείο Στρατολογίας ΓΕΕΦ/Ιου-3ον ΕΓ-ΔΣΛ I-IV ΣΔΙ/lovΕΓ-ΦΕΝ Φ-83Α/ΕΣΣΟ Φ. 421.1/16/180251 Σ. 1339 Λευκωσία 22 Δεκ. 82. 30 35 ΘΕΜΑ: Πρόσκληση Στρατευσίμων 83 Α /ΕΣΣΟ ΣΧΕΤ: α. 22526/9-12-S2 Απόφαση Υπουργ. Συμβουλίου β. 1422/14-12-82 Διάταγμα Υπουργού Αμύνης. 379 Stxlianides J. Pitsillides and Another v. Republic

(1983)Ι. Οι τρατεύοιμοι της 83 Α/ΕΣΣΟ, που κλήθηκαν για κατάταξη στις τάξεις της Εθνική? Φρουράς από 12 μέχρι και 14 Ιανουαρίου 1983, αν παρουσιαστούν σε διαφορετική ημε­ ρομηνία από αυτή που καθορίστηκε με το (α) σχετικό, αλλά μέσα στις προθεσμίες κατατάξεως της ΕΣΣΟ, να γίνονται δεκτοί, αδιάκριτα από την ημερομηνία παρουσιάσεως τους. 5

1. Ακόμη, να γίνονται δεκτοί για κατάταξη, χωρίς καμιά συνέπεια, και εκείνοι πού θα παρουσιαστούν εκπρόθεσμα μετά τις 14.1.1983 και μέχρι 17-1-
2. Χριστόδουλος Βενιαμίν Υπουργός Ακριβές Αντίγραφο (Υπ.) Τχης(Σ) Ευτύχιος Αποστολάκης Τμηματάρχης/Γ. 10 15 "URGENT TO: KENLarnacaaud Paphosand ail E. Offices MINISTRY OF DEFENCE GEN. STAFF OF NAT. GUARD. ENLISTMENT SECTJON/1 Tel. 4306 F.421.1/16/180251 20 COPY TO: Ministry of defence/ Enlistment Office S.I339 ΓΕΕΦ/Ιοη-3οηΕΓ-ΔΣΛ Nicosa 22 Dec.
3. l-IV ΣΔΙ/lov ΕΓ-ΦΕΝ Φ.83 Α'/ΕΣΣΟ 25 SUBJECT: Call-up of conscripts of 83 Α'/ΕΣΣΟ REF: a. 22526/9-12-82 Decision of the Council of Ministers b. 1422/14-12-82 Order of the Minister of Defence. 30
4. The concripts of 83 Α'/ΕΣΣΟ, called-up for enlistment in the ranks of the National Guard from 12till the 14 January,
5. if they appear on a different date from that fixed by (a) above, but within the appointed period of enlistment of ΕΣΣΟ, to be accepted, irrespective of the date of their 35 attendance.
6. Also, to be accepted for enlistment without any, con380 2 C.L.R. 5 Pitsillides and Another \. Republic St>lianides J. sequence, those who will appear out of time after 14.1.1983 and until 17.1.
7. Christodoulos Veniamin Minister True copy (Sgd) Head of Dept. (Σ) Eftychios Apostolakis Head of Dept./Γ). By this document the Minister directed that the conscripts of 83 Α'/ΕΣΣΟ called for enlistment in the National Guard 10 from 12th~14th January, 1983, if they attended on a different date from that appointed in his Order but within the period of enlistment, to be admitted independently of the date of their attendance, aud furthermore no consequences to follow if they attended out of time but at any rate not later than the 17th 15 January,
8. It was submitted by counsel for the appellants that in view of the contents of exhibit No. 8 the appellants could not be validly charged or found guilty that they committed the offence on 12th January,
9. 20 25 30 35 The liability of a person for service in the National Guard is created by section 4 of the Law. The general call-up is made by the decision of the Council of Ministers and the other arrangements—date, place, etc.—by Order of the Minister (section 6

(1),

(2)and

(4)). The Order of the Minister, as published in the Gazette, is clear and definite. Exhibit No. 8 was addressed to KEN Paphos and ICEN Larnaca. It was not issued by virtue of the power vested in the Minister under the relevant Law. It was not published in the Official Gazette; it was not brought to the knowledge or attention of anyone except the appropriate military authorities. It was, therefore, not an Order in the sense of s.6

(4)of the Law. It did not and could not modify or amend Order 1422 published in the Official Gazette, as aforesaid. It was only an admi­ nistrative direction whereby indulgence would be extended to those not enlisting on the date specified in the Order but on any subsequent date, at any rate not later thanthe 17th January, 1983. The responsibility of the appellants under the Law was to 381 Styltsnides J. Pitsillides and Another v. Republic (19*3) join on 12th January, 1983. They failed to do so on that date and needless to say that they did not join at all. Therefore, it is not permissible for them to contend that the indulgence of the circular of the Minister is of any avail to them. The element necessary for the offence was complete on 12th January, 1983. We find no merit in this ground. GROUND No. 2-REASONABLE 5 CAUSE: Section 22(

1. a)of Law No. 20 of 1964, as amended by s. 8 of Law No. 22 of 1978, reads:"22. Πας dans— 10 (α) Αν υπόχρεος να πράξη τοΰτο παραλείπει άνευ ευλόγου αΙτίας, το βάρος αποδείξεως της οποίας θα βαρύνη αυτόν, νά συμμορφωθη προς οίανδήττοτε διαταγήν κλήσεως ή δέν προσέρχεται εντός των ϋπο τοιαύτης διαταγής καθοριζομένων προθεσμιών J5 είναι ένοχος αδικήματος και υπόκειται είς φυλάκισιν μη ύπερβαίνουσσν τα δύο ετη ή είς χρηματικήν ποινήν μή υπερβαίνουσα^ τάς πευτακοσίας λίρας, ή είς άμφοτέρας τας ποινάς ταύτας". ("22. Any person who— 20 (
2. a)being obliged to do so neglects, without reasonable cause, the burden of proof being on him, to comply with any order of call up or does not attend within the time prescribed in the call up shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to 25 imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to both such sentences"). It was canvassed by counsel for the appellants that they dis­ charged the burden of proof cast on them; that their failure to 39 enlist was due to a reasonable cause, the reasonable cause being their religious belief; they are Jehovah witnesses, and their religious beliefs do not allow them to take up arms. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no finding by the trial Court that thedefendants are Jehovah 35 382 2 C.L.R. Pitsillides and Another v. Republic Stylianides J . witnesses or that their religious beliefs do not allow them to takeuparmsorthat thegroundfor notenlistinginthe National Guard on the appointed date was due to the aforesaid reasons. Though thejudgment of the Military Court cannot bepraised 5 for the clarity of itsfindings,nevertheless, having regard to the fact that any ambiguity has to be in favour of the accused and the tenor of thejudgment as a whole, we are of the view that the trial Court has found that the true facts were that the appellants failed to enlist because they are Jehovah.witnesses 10 and their religious beliefs do not allow them to take up arms. There was ample evidence before the trial Court to arrive at such finding. "Reasonable" isa relativeterm and theremust bebone fides; for the cause to be reasonable there must be good faith in it; 15 it must be objectively fair. The "cause" must be one that is not contrary to or incompatible with the Law of the land. The religious beliefs and grounds of conscience of the appellants by themselves are not "reasonable cause" if the Law does not otherwise absolve them from criminal liability due to such 20 beliefs. As,however, they are not exempted due to such cause from service, they failed to discharge the burden cast on them. We need not elaborate further on what may.or may not be in other cases a reasonable cause in the sense of s.22(
3. a)of the Law. 25 GROUND Wo. 3: Thelast andmain ground on whichtheseappealswereargued is that the provision of the National Guard Law creating the obligation for the appellants to serve in the National Guard isrepugnantto Article 18of the Constitution in the sense that 30 military service violates their right to freedom of conscience and religion. ThisArticleproclaimsand'safeguards thefreedom ofthought, conscience and religion. It reads as follows:35 "1. Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 2. All religions whose doctrines or rites are not secret are free. 383 Sljlianldes J. Pitsillides and Another v. Republic

(1983)—The Constitutionof Greece,

(1954)Part I, Volume "A", pp. 67-68; Marinos—Religious Liberty,

(1972)p. 11; and Sgouritsas & Yorghopoullos—ConstitutionalLaw,

(1966)Volume "B", Part "B", pp. Ill et seq.). One of the main purposes of the concern with human rights 5 is to ensure that divergent opinions can be accommodated, respected and acted out, in such a way that due attention is paid both to the common good and the concerns of the individuals. Mr. Clendes for the appellants argued extensively that 10 compulsory military serviceiscontrary toparagraph 1 ofArticle 18of the Constitution and not to the manifestation of the religion that is liable to limitations necessary for the grounds set out in paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Constitution. He referred this Court to a number of cases brought before the 15 European Commissionand CourtofHuman Rightsforviolation of Article 9 of the Convention. In ApplicationNo. 2299/64 by Albert Grandrath against the Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission, after referring to Article 9 of the Convention and Article 4, paragraphs 20 2 and 3 of the Convention, which provide as follows— "

(2)Nooneshallberequiredtoperform forced orcompulsory labour.

(3)For the purpose of this Article, the term 'forced or compulsory labour' shall not include: (

1. a)„ 25 . (
2. b)any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service", proceeded:"As in this provision it isexpressly recognised that civilian service may be imposed on conscientious objectors as a substitute for military service, it must be concluded that objections of conscience do not, under the Convention, 35 entitle a person to exemption from such service". (See Art. 10.2 and 3(
3. b)of our Constitution). 386 30 2 C.L.R. Pitsillides and Another v. Republic Stylianides J. In Application No. 5591/72decision was given on 2nd April, 1973. The applicant was convicted and given a suspended prison sentencefor havingrefused to servecompulsory military service. Heclaimedthat asa RomanCatholicitwasimpossible 5 for him to serve as an armed combatant. The opinion of the Commission as set out in the Collection of Decisions of the Commission for 1973 (p, 161) reads as follows:- 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 "The applicant has complained that he was punished for having refused to carry out his military service in the Austrian army although hehad objected to military service on the ground of his religious convictions. He alleges thattherebyhisrighttofreedom ofconscienceand religion, as is provided for under Art. 9 of the Convention, had been violated. The Commission, in this respect, hasfirst had regard to the provisions of this Article according to which 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest hisreligionorbelief,inworship,teaching,practice and observance'. In interpreting this provision the Commission has also taken into consideration the terms of Art. 4

(3)(b) of the Convention which states that forced or compulsory labour shall not include 'any service of a military character or, in cases of conscientious objectors, in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service'. This provision clearly shows that, by including the words 'in countries where they are recognised* in Art. 4

(3)(b), a choice is left to the High Contracting Parties to the Convention whether or not to recognise conscientious objectors and, if so. recognised, to provide some substitute service for them. The Commission, for this reason, finds that Art. 9, as qualified by Art. 4{3Xb) of the Convention, does not impose on a state the obligation to recognise conscientious objectors and, consequently, not to make special arrangementsfortheexerciseoftheirrighttofreedom ofconscience and religion as far as it affects their compulsory military service. It follows that these Articles do not prevent a 387 Stylianides J. Pitsillides and Another v. Republic

(1983)state, which has not recognised conscientious objectors, from punishing those who refuse to do military service. Consequently, the application is,asregardsthis complaint, manifestly ill-founded under Art. 9 of the Convention and must be rejected under Art. 27

(2)", 5 In Grandratli's case(supra) Eustathiades gave an individual opinion in which he stated:"Having regard to the applicant's religious convictions, the fact of requiring him to perform a substitute civilian service constitutes an interference with his freedom of 10 conscience as guaranteed by Article 9, paragraph

(1), of the Convention". But further down he said:"It is the constant jurisprudence of the Commission that itisprimarily a matterfor each Contracting Stateto decide 15 whether or not such special circumstances exist as justify restrictions to be imposed in regard to a right guaranteed by the Convention according to the specific provisions contained intheArticleoftheConvention whichguarantees such right". Limitation prescribed by Law should be necessary in the interests, inter alia, of the security of the Republic. The final arbiter to pronounce on the existence of the necessity are the Courts of each State. To ascertain whether it was necessary to introduce permissible limitations regard must be had to the 25 national realities at the time of the enactment and subsequent thereto. In the Republic of Cyprus for the last 20years an insurgence is going on. For a decade—from 1964-1974—this country was living under the threat and danger of foreign invasion by 30 a neighbouring country. In 1974 Cyprus became the victim of that threatened invasion and ever since this invasion a substantial part of the area of the Republic—about 37%—is under foreign military occupation. The very existence of the State continues to be under express or latent danger. These 35 circumstances do justify the limitation of the right to freedom of religion and conscience by the imposition of compulsory military service. In the preamble to Law 20/64 388 20 2 C.L.R. Pitsillides and Another v. Republic Stylianides J. it is plainly stated that the National Guard was established for thedefence of the Republic. So long as theNational Guard is used for the defence and security of the country, the Law imposing the obligation for military service on the citizens of 5 Cyprus, irrespective of whether the right to religion and con­ science is restricted, is not unconstitutional. It is a sad event, unconstitutional innature, that theNational Guard was used inthesummer of 1974 for themass suppression of the rights of the citizens of the Republic and in an attempt 10 to overthrow the constitutional order of the country. This is an exception and was directed by a military junta of another country and not by the Authorities of the Republic. Mr. Clerides referred this Court to Law 731/77 of Greece which governs the position of conscientious objectors in that 15 country and to the Resolution on Conscientious Objectors of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe dated 4th February, 1983. Neither of the two is part of the Law of this country. The Court interprets,and applies the laws of the country, i.e. the Constitution, Conventions ratified 20 and legislation enacted locally. Before concluding, however, we would liketoplace onrecord that this country cherishes the fundamental human rights, and this Court feels proud of the record both of the Court and of the country in the sphere of the protection of human rights. 25 We are mindful of the resolutions and decisions adopted by international organs on the subject of conscientious objection, including the General Assembly of the United Nations, Resolution 11 Β(XXVII) of 1971; Resolution 1982/30adopted on 10th September, 1982, on conscientious objection to military 30 serviceWhereby the right of all persons to refuse military service or police forces, to pursue wars of aggression or to engage in other illegal warfare and to refuse military service on grounds of conscience or deeply held personal conviction and their responsibility to offer instead of military service and other 35 service in the social or economicfield,including work for the economic progress and development of their country was recognized; the World Congress on Disarmament Education of 1980, final document,para. 6; the Princeton Declaration of the Third Assembly of the World Conference on Religion and 389 Stylianides J. Pitsillides and Another r. Republic

(1983)Peace upholding the right of citizens to conscientious objection to military service;the statement of theparticipantsinthe 1968 meeting of the World Council of Churches held at Uppsala; the statement of the participants m the Second Assembly of the World Conference on Religion and Peace held at Louvain, 5 Belgium, in 1974, that governments should be persuaded to recognize the right of conscientious objection and make alternative forms of humanitarian service; and the resolution on conscientious objection of 4.2.1983 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe whereby efforts to include 10 a right of conscientious objection in the Convention of Human Rights is supported. We trust that the appropriate Authorities of the Republic will,ifand when in thefuture and circumstances of thecountry permit it, consider the exemption of conscientious objection 15 from compulsory military service and/or the imposition of alternative service. As we have already said, the present situation does not warrant it. Conscientious objection should be recognised not only if the objectors base their objection on religious ground but also 20 if they base it on any humanistic ground whatsoever. The conviction must be a genuine one and the test for the scrutiny of the genuineness should be more or less stringent. In view of the aforesaid these appeals are hereby dismissed. Appealsdismissed. 25 390