Need Help With Mexico/ Malawi!!

by Anitar 21 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Oroborus21
    Oroborus21

    Shawn,

    you make a good point. Since Ray did it in CofC, it is common to compare the two situations even though there are differences as you point out.

    I think though that one doesn't need to compare the two situations at all to make a strong point. The Mexican Cartilla situation, standing by itself, seems to raise serious questions about whether the Society blessed or ignored what appears to be facially routine compromise of Christian neutrality by the Mexican brothers. (And that's not even getting into the "bribery" issue.)

    Rockhound, the problem, as I stated in my previous post is that any scans or reprints of the documents are going to be found only at websites or made available by sources that her mom would likely reject as reliable. And by the way, the archive of the Observer site doesn't contain the scans in question.

    As I recall correctly from CofC, Ray states that he made copies of the originals which were in the files of the Mexican branch. Thus, the only extent copies of these letters are probably going to be found in the private papers of Ray Franz. Possibly, Ray's publisher or some persons who know him have copies of the copies.

    As for the "originals" I would doubt whether Brooklyn Bethel or the Mexico Branch has kept the original correspondence in their files. If they haven't pulled a Nixon by now that would truly be astonishing.

  • GermanXJW
    GermanXJW

    There are some hints in the 1995 yearbook:

    *** yb95 pp. 232-234 Mexico ***

    Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Mexico

    The organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has always operated along the same basic lines in Mexico as in other parts of the world. Also, since 1931, the brothers have individually identified themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yet, for many years, in Mexico, it was necessary for the organization to function as a civil and educational society, as explained earlier.

    However, during the decade of the 1980’s, changes began to take place. Government representatives repeatedly visited some of our meeting places and insisted that they be registered with the government as places for religious meetings and that these become federal property. On the other hand, it became more and more difficult to rent public places for our conventions and assemblies because the authorities insisted that the law prohibited religious meetings in public places.

    This led to meetings with government representatives in 1988. We learned that the authorities, even though they had no complaint against our organization as to comportment, felt considerable distrust because of what others had told them about our organization and our attitude toward the national emblems. Furthermore, they had the idea that our organization operated underground since the meeting places could not be easily identified. At our meetings with the authorities, they received an ample witness as to the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Our position of Christian neutrality was made clear, also our respect for government authority, balanced with insistence on refraining from what to us is idolatry. The conclusion drawn from these interviews was that our organization should operate openly as the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, even if it meant that all of our meeting places would become government property. This would allow the authorities to get better acquainted with our work, and this, we felt, should have positive results. Even so, there was no solution regarding how we would be able to hold large conventions.

    In 1989, with the approval of the Governing Body, a letter was written to all the “companies” saying that as of April 1, we would be operating in Mexico as a religious organization. Afterward, in the June issue of Nuestro Ministerio del Reino (Our Kingdom Ministry), which was changed from being called Informador (Informant) de la Torre del Vigía, further details were given. From then on, the Bible would be used from door to door, and prayers would be offered at meetings. Later, we began to sing songs at the meetings.

    You can just imagine the rejoicing this brought to the congregations! Tears of joy streamed down the faces of the brothers in the Halls for Cultural Study, or Study Halls (which now became Kingdom Halls), and at the conventions and assemblies, when collective prayers and singing began. Furthermore, direct use of the Bible in our door-to-door witnessing infused the brothers with increased zeal, made their work more effective, and gave them great satisfaction. Without fully realizing it, we had also established a foundation from which to defend our Christian way of life legally.

  • Oroborus21
    Oroborus21

    GermanXJW,

    these excerpts go to what I call the Mexican Question, and the issues of the organization and registration the whole (religion vs. cultural society registration) but not to the Cartilla issue.

  • Anitar
    Anitar

    Thank you everyone for your help! However, Rockhound, I don't think the link is working...

    I think the trick is to show her from the best educational point of view possible. For so many witnesses, they think you're attacking them, when in reality you're trying to help them. She seems incapable of examining her beliefs from a logical point of view when I talk to her. She adores the organization and the dominance it has over her so much, it prevents her from thinking critically.

    In a sense, I have to get her head out of the clouds and back down to earth.

    Anitar

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    Even if we do not make a direct comparison, can we not say this about each individual case - ?

    a) - What exact biblical harm would have been done to let the Malawi people just have the little 25c card? What exact principle involved here is really worth human lives? And what in the hell was that letter-writing campaign supposed to accomplish, other than accentuating this persecution? Couldn't the society find a more worthy cause for which to get people raped, tortured, jailed, or even killed?

    b) - Cannot anybody clearly see that condoning bribery is patently dishonest just on the face of it? What about Mexican brothers whose family could not fork over the thousand dollars or whatever the phony papers cost? This is dishonesty, with shades of class elitism. This is clearly wrong, from most any analysis of the bible. No matter where you stand on the military, it is still bribery and a lie.

    WTS is culpably guilty of wrong teaching in both individual cases.

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    Dear Anitar,

    I am so happy for you..a window of opportunity. Here is a little clip from COC where Franz speaks of the Mexico/Malawi incident, to refresh your memory. I am currently trying to find you some other info.

    Sincerely,

    Lady Liberty

    Another "conscience" issue for Witnesses involved political party membership cards. When the ruling element in the African country of Malawi demanded that citizens purchase "party cards", the Watchtower Society took a stand against it. In adhering to this position, Malawian Witnesses faced imprisonment, beatings and severe mistreatment at the hands of government loyalists.

    Meanwhile, in Mexico Witnesses were in the habit of bribing officials to obtain cards identifying them as members of the reserves who had fulfilled a year of military service. Not having the cartilla would result in some inconvenience, but not the sort of suffering Witnesses faced in Malawi.Franz relates in detail how Watchtower headquarters gave its approval to both policies, leaving African JWs to face brutal persecution, while permitting Mexican Witnesses to buy cards 'under the table.' This caused much suffering in Africa. And it helped cause the "crisis of conscience" Raymond Franz experienced as a member of the Governing Body whose votes enforced these contradictory rulings.

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    Hello again,

    Here is some info from another thread on the subject.

    Sincerely,

    Lady Liberty

    Outlaw:

    Here's an essay from the WT Observer you might find interesting. It's in the section "JW's and Society."

    Mexico v Malawi - A Double Standard? Property v People? An allegation of 'double standards' has been made regarding the Watchtower Society's (WTS) past history in Malawi when contrasted with Mexico. A brief condensed summary (without copies of letters etc.) of the allegation follow.

    Michael Fry

    (For more documented information on the Mexican 'Cartilla' aspect - see Crisis of Concience - Commentary Press, Atlanta)



    In 1964, 1967, 1972 and 1975, waves of intense, cruel and barbaric persecution hit Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) in the East African country of Malawi which until 1993 had been ruled with an iron fist by Dr Hastings (Kamuzu) Banda for over 30 years - the self styled 'President for Life' - although now currently on trial for murdering 4 cabinet ministers in 1983. He was finally thrown out in 1993 by long overdue free elections.

    Witnesses had, in keeping with headquarters policy, refused to buy a 'party card' for Banda's 'Malawi Congress Party' as they felt it compromised political neutrality. [JWs have nothing to do with the military, defence or politics] Some may be puzzled at this because in Malawi then there was no choice and only one party - Banda's. One could logically reason that any citizen anywhere is a member of a country or state or government - the words citizen, state, political, government - all stem from same Latin source. Membership of such was automatic and there was no need to get involved with party politics, especially as there were no other political parties in Malawi!. Romans 13:7 demonstrates the early Christians attitude to secular government.

    Anyway, the persecution was nevertheless needless and cruel beyond belief. Thousands of Malawi witnesses had their homes burned and crops destroyed. Thousands of the women and young girls were raped and abused often by gangs of thugs. Many witnesses suffered and died because of their refusal to purchase the party card. Again and again it happened. Accounts of this terrible suffering was regularly and repeatedly reported in the Watchtower and Awake magazines. Millions of letters were sent to Banda from other witnesses all over the world, protesting about this barbaric treatment. And rightly so.

    At the same time, many miles away in Mexico, the reports from Malawi were being read with much unease.

    In Mexico it was the custom for the brothers to 'make a payment' ( bribe) to government officials in order to obtain a 'Identity Cartilla for Military Service'. This was normally obtained by carrying out military service training on a weekly basis for one year. Bribing officials and obtaining the Cartilla (or certificate) without completing the training, was an illegal, although quite common practice. The Cartilla is needed in order to obtain a passport. The Cartilla puts one effectively in the 'first reserves' of the military. The Mexican branch of the society had previously written to the headquarters in 1960, questioning whether the bribing of officials to obtain the Cartilla was acceptable. The reply was that it was and up to the conscience of the brothers themselves, and that the society should not be worried about it. The society need not get involved.

    The reports in the magazines about the abuses in Malawi and the reason for them, caused the Mexican branch to again question headquarters about it in 1970. The reply was that 'there was nothing more to add', and that the Mexican branch were to leave things as they were. A brother in Mexico was free to pay a bribe and would not be punished by the society. (A non JW reader should note that this is not a case of 'general religious tolerance' - the society is quick to rule on a variety of other issues and penalties can be severe. For example - a JW who occasionally smoked or celebrated a birthday or Christmas, would be disfellowshiped (excommunicated) and other JWs including family would not be allowed to associate, with him or her) Consider the situation then:

    • 1..'Alternative service' is where a country's government allows alternative work in lieu of military service (or conscription) for persons who, for religious or other reasons, conscientiously object to it.
      • The official WTS ruling at that time on 'alternative service' was that it was totally unacceptable for Jehovah's Witnesses, even if the alternative work offered had no military connections . This was still the case in 1980 (and may even still be now) Brothers in lands where there was compulsory conscription were expected to 'serve their time' in prison for refusing such service, like thousands before them. The alternative would be disfellowshipping.
    • 2.. Brothers in Mexico were bribing officials to obtain a military Cartilla, effectively putting them in the first reserves of the army. The headquarters society was fully aware of this
    • 3.Brothers and sisters in Malawi were being murdered, beaten, raped and tortured for their adherence to (the WTS interpretation of) Christian neutrality and the refusal to buy a (single state) party card , involving no bribing or illegality.
    Why the double standards with such devastating consequences for the poor brothers and sisters in Malawi? Or what about the brothers in some countries spending years of young lives in prison?

    If 'substitutes' are wrong in principle, what about BLOOD substitutes - which witnesses willingly accept? What is the difference? Rules of men?

    I hope that the reason is nothing to do with land and property. How so? Consider the wider circumstances that pertained in Mexico.


    La Torre del Vigia (Watchtower Society - Mexico)

    Relatively recently, in the Watchtower of January 1st 1990, page 7, it was announced that the status of the organisation in Mexico had been changed in 1989.

    The brothers and sisters in Mexico could now for the first time have prayers at the meetings, sing songs, and use the Bible when preaching. The article spoke of the 'tears of joy' brought by this 'thrilling change'.

    The Yearbook 1990 page 10 also reported this change. It said 'On April 1st a change in the status and organisational procedures of JWs took place in Mexico: Prayer may now be freely offered at all congregation meetings, and the bible may be used in field service. A woman active in a Catholic Bible Study program said about the witnesses new religious freedom: 'If they left us speechless before, now that they are opening the bible at the doors, we are lost!' [emphasis added - note the inference of the word 'freedom']

    (The undisputable fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses DID NOT use the NAME of Jehovah, nor Jesus, nor the Bible in their meetings or printed material. Here are two examples of INFORMADOR DE LA TORRE DEL VIGIA, from
    Kent" 1988 and . Note that Jesus is mentioned as: Maestro Principal and Gran Maestro. The Bible as Tradduccin. I'm not Spanish, so I don't know Superintendente Amoroso :-) But after their "freedom", after the law that denyed religious churches to own property was gone, they suddenly starts using Jehovah, Jesus and the Bible. The last example is from NUESTRO MINISTERIO DEL REINO .
    (comments done by
    ))

    Neither of these 1990 articles saw fit to explain what the previous situation in Mexico had been, and why they had previously been denied this religious freedom. A reader would probably conclude that the Mexican authorities must have changed or softened in some way, giving the witnesses a long awaited new religious freedom at last. They would be mistaken.

    The Awake 22 November 1993 p28 also had an item - 'Jehovah's Witnesses Given Legal Recognition in Mexico' that was also somewhat economical with the truth - Anyone reading it would get the CLEAR impression that the situation had previously been 'out of the witnesses hands' It said:

    • 'On May 7, Jehovah's Witnesses were granted legal status as a religion in Mexico. A document guaranteeing such recognition was given them by the Subsecretary of the Government Interior Department on May 31. Thus another step forward was taken toward religious freedom in Mexico. It was on April 1, 1989, that Jehovah's Witnesses were first able to offer prayer freely at their congregation meetings and use the Bible in their door-to-door ministry. There are over 370,000 Witnesses in Mexico. The Mexican government reformed its laws last year and began to give legal recognition to religious organizations in the country.'

    In 1917 the Mexican Laws of Reformation established full freedom of religion in Mexico. Probably due to extensive foreign mineral and oil land ownership, coupled with a past animosity between state and catholic church (prior to 1859 the catholic church held on third of all property and land) the ownership of mineral rights, property and land by foreign companies was curbed. Religious organisations, although free to worship, could not actually own property. The constitution meant that property was effectively held in custody by the state, but the religion was free to use this property for worship.

    The very recent Yearbook of 1995 throws considerably more light on the subject skates round the obvious but uncomfortable conclusions. It has a section devoted to the history of JWs in Mexico. A few sentences, here and there, admit what the situation was. On June 15th 1943 the 'La Torre del Vigia' (Watchtower Society - Mexico) was registered in Mexico by the WTS headquarters as a CULTURAL organisation rather than a religious one. Therefore BIBLES were not used in preaching, SONGS were not sung at meetings and assemblies, and even PRAYERS were not offered publicly. Congregations were called 'Cultural Companies' Baptism was called 'performing the symbol' Surely the society hadn't decided to opt for land and property ownership rather than religious status, prayer, use of Bibles etc. What other reason was there? The 1995 Yearbook does not fully explain this. It does say (on the subject of no public prayer) that 'there is nothing to stop someone silently offering prayer to Jehovah' but how can this possibly be resolved with Daniel's example in Dan 6:6-28 where Daniel prayed publicly, despite the Kings decree, -and landed up in the lions den as a result? Yet the society opted for a 'no public prayer status' voluntarily!

    Public Prayer is a primary part of worship for JWs everywhere else. So what changed in April 1989? Surely it had nothing to do with something as worldly as property ownership in 'this doomed old system of things?' The 1995 Yearbook (page 233) says that ' In 1988 after meetings with government representatives (who?) it was concluded that the organisation should operate as a religion even if it meant that meeting places would become federal property '. At last? Well, not quite. A number of pages later (Page 249-50) the Yearbook also says '..Carlos Salinas de Gortari began his term of presidency of the republic in December 1988 - one could see that there would be a change in policy regarding religion and a re-approachment with the Vatican'. Hmm. NB: By 1992 the actual constitution itself had been amended. Religions could own their own land and property. Parochial schools were OK's etc. etc. A timely coincidence?

    All this may give a little human insight into why their were double standards applied between Malawi and Mexico. But it does not explain, excuse or justify it. The questions it raises are quite simple. 1.Firstly, Is this all true? Or is it all lies? Did the society's headquarters not object to brothers in Mexico illegally bribing officials in order to obtain a certificate which placed them in the military reserves, whilst at the same time knowing of the brutality, rape, torture and murder going on in Malawi from 1964 - 1975 and later? If so, what was the difference and where is it's precedence or justification in the Bible? 2. Was a 'cultural' rather than religious organisation set up in Mexico, [denying the use of Bibles to preach, public prayer etc] s imply so that land and property could be owned? Or what were the other reason(s)? Was this 'cultural status' and it's voluntary nature fully explained in any publications (outside Mexico) prior to those mentioned here? Why was the change made in 1989? What prompted it, and was any land or property lost as a result? 3. Is there a double standard in all this? If so, is anyone humbly sorry? -enough to apologise and set things right? Surviving relatives of victims in Malawi would be an appropriate place to start. JW publications take every opportunity to rake over any and all unsavoury aspects of all other religions. They claim to be God's sole visible organisation on earth today. If so, there must be a simple explanation. (If there is, then |I cant find it, amd letters to the Society on the matter go unanswered)

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    OK..

    Here are some quotes and sources, that may help you.

    Sincerely,

    Lady Liberty

    http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/History/a_brief_history_of_the_watchtower.htm

    "Two sorts of weights for measuring are something detestable to Jehovah and a cheating pair of scales is not good." Proverbs 20:23

    It was under the policies of F. W. Franz that thousands of Malawians were persecuted, their homes burned to the ground. Many witness woman were raped and murdered and still others had to wander as refugees. [40} All this befell them because they were forbidden by the Watchtower Society's unyielding policies to buy a .25 cent party-card which would have simply recognized them as politically non-threatening in the single-party-state of Malawi.

    Simultaneously, brothers in Mexico had been paying exorbitant fees for many years to bribe military officials to obtain a "cartilla"- This cartilla card would officially mark one as a member of the first reserves, that is, a person who had already fulfilled his military service. (Military service is prohibited by the Watchtower). All these transactions were done clandestinely.

    When brothers in Mexico read in the WT what was happening to their dear brothers in Malawi, their consciences pricked them. Bethel headquarters subsequently received a flood of mail from Mexico asking what to do about their very similar, but covert situation. The response from Watchtower headquarters? "It’s a conscience matter."

    ( Ironically, today Watchtower leaders have rendered political voting a "conscience matter," even piously preaching to rank and file Jehovah's Witnesses that they should not judge others for doing so when they themselves had the ability to spare their spiritual brothers in Malawi much pain by conceding them a similar right. (Watchtower November 1, 1999 pgs. 28-29. See Crisis of Conscience www.towerwatch.com/book_store.htm)

    Under C.T.Russell the Watchtower Society viewed alternative service and warfare as a Christian’s personal decision.[41] F.W.Franz, however, saw such alternative service (i.e. hospital work) as compromising Christian neutrality. To ensure that witnesses would not engage in such, he imposed a policy whereby anyone accepting such service would be disassociated. His policy stayed in effect for over a half century. Literally thousands of young Jehovah's Witness men went to prison refusing alternative service in place of the obligatory military service of their country.

    The May 1, 1996 WT, as if by edict, reversed the policy declaring it once again a "conscience matter".

    I -re-ask the questions raised above:

    Does a sober consideration of the Society's past evidence an indisputable divine backing? Does a chronological analysis of its leaders' teachings and prophetic pronouncements point incontrovertibly and inescapably to the fact that they have indeed acted as a unique channel of communication between God and man? How does the Watchtower’s 120 years of history as God’s "channel of communication" compare with God’s historic method of communication as evident in the Bible?

    Foot notes

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    Here's so more: http://www.jwfiles.com/malawi.htm

    L.L.

    The Malawi Incident

    Below is a Watchtower article that appeared in 1968 about the Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi and the persecution inflicted upon them. What is of interest, the Jehovah's Witnesses refused to buy a political membership cards in Malawi's Congress Party, which was required by law. This was against the Watchtower Society's rules and as a result, many innocent people were tortured and murdered. The Government that caused these atrocities are definitely guilty, but the Society also is accountable before God for not allowing their people to exercise their conscience in these matters. The Society now says that Voting is up your conscience. Why was this not allowed with the innocent victims in Malawi? Also, why has the Society turned a blind eye to the Witnesses in Mexico and allowed them to obtain a "Cartilla" by bribing officials. To legally obtain the"Cartilla" one would have to serve a period of one year in military service.

    Watchtower 2/1/1968 pages 71-79

    Shocking Religious Persecution in Malawi

    SUDDENLY persecution of a zealous religious minority has again broken out. It has flared up with a violence and brutality that one associates more with the Dark Ages than with the last third of this twentieth century. During the year just ended thousands of dedicated Christians have had their homes, stores and places of worship burned to the ground or otherwise destroyed because they endeavored to live in harmony with the Bible. They have been robbed, over a thousand women have been raped, men have been beaten unconscious and a number of them have been killed. Where? In Malawi, a narrow, landlocked country in Central Africa, somewhat to the southeast.

    Yes, it is in this new nation of some four million inhabitants, formerly known as Nyasaland, that this shocking religious persecution is taking place. At Lilongwe in central Malawi, 170 homes of these Christians were burned down in three nights. In the Fort Johnston district, slightly to the south, 34 homes and 18 food storage places were burned down toward the end of October. At Mbalame on October 27 the Christians of two congregations all had their homes burned down while they, including the women, were stripped of their clothes and brutally beaten. In some of these places persecutors used trucks to haul away the confiscated household furnishings of these Christians before destroying their homes.

    A traveling minister in the country wrote: “On October 27 I was robbed of all my possessions. . . . My wife and I were badly beaten up. Hundreds of our Christian brothers have had their homes destroyed. Many places of worship have been demolished.”

    In one place a number of these Christians were beaten unconscious and one of them placed on top of a pile of wood, which was then set afire, all at the instigation of a member of Malawi’sparliament. But then this politician began to have second thoughts about the matter and so had the unconscious Christian hurriedly pulled off the pile.

    In another place one night a group of these Christians was awakened by Congress Party officials. The men were beaten and slashed with sticks and pangas [machetes] and then were forced to look on while ten of their women were raped. Two of the women were pregnant, one of whom later had a miscarriage as a result.

    Late in October a large number of Christian women from the Mlanje area were assaulted and raped, and on October 25, 1967, a fifteen-year-old girl at Mkuwila Village, because of refusing to compromise her religious convictions, was tied to a tree and raped six times. How sadistic these persecutors were can be seen from the fact that they even forced a wooden plug into one Christian woman.

    This shocking persecution has sent many of these Christians to hospitals, and at least five of them were killed up to the end of November 1967. Hundreds have fled to the bush wilderness for safety while literally thousands of others have taken refuge in the neighboring Portuguese province of Mozambique, where they have been provided with food and shelter.

    The Times, of Blantyre, Malawi’s chief industrial city, situated in the southern part of the country, in its issue of November 9 told of 3,000 of these Christians appearing in court at Lilongwe, charged with being members of an unlawful society. Checking this report, two missionaries visited Lilongwe. There they found 2,400 of them in prison and learned that five babies had been born there and that 800 Christians were being held at the police station. Although most of these had spent the night sleeping under an open sky and it had rained, they were in good spirits, determined to stand firm. Truly, such faith is commendable, but is not a government that treats them so harshly making itself an object of shame before the world?

    Who Are the Victims?
    These persecuted victims belong to a religious minority group known as the Christian witnesses of Jehovah, who are noted world wide for their strong Bible-based faith. No doubt you know some of Jehovah’s witnesses in your community and have observed that they put their religion first in their lives, even as Jesus commanded his followers to do when he said: “Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom and his righteousness.” (Matt. 6:33) The same is true of Jehovah’s witnesses in Malawi.

    These Christians have been found in Malawi ever since World War I and have been organized for the preaching of “this good news of the kingdom” since 1933 by the Watch Tower Society. (Matt. 24:14) By August 1967 there were 18,519 Christian witnesses of Jehovah in Malawi actively carrying on their educational work with comparatively little interference. When they held their “Disciple-making” District Assemblies in the summer of 1967, a total of 25,830 persons, or upward of 7,000 more than there were Witnesses in the country, attended and listened with interest. Among those present were government observers who could not help but be impressed by the love, unity and peacefulness manifested by the Witnesses, as many thousands of persons from differing tribes mingled together just like one big family.

    Why the Persecution?
    Since this is the way the witnesses of Jehovah conduct themselves, why, then, all this violent persecution of them in Malawi? One of the main reasons is that the Witnesses refuse to buy membership cards in Malawi’s Congress Party as well as refuse to buy and wear badges with the picture of the President of Malawi, Dr. H. Kamuzu Banda. Other religious organizations, Catholic, Protestant and Moslem, have all yielded to pressure in these respects, but Jehovah’s witnesses have not. Why? Because of their strictly adhering to the Word of God.

    As Christian witnesses of Jehovah they follow the example of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who kept free from the politics of his day. He said that his followers were “no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” (John 17:16) And before the Roman political ruler of Judea, Pontius Pilate, he testified: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.” (John 18:36) Previously, when the Jews wanted to seize him to make him king, he eluded them and retreated alone into a mountain.—John 6:15.

    Yes, Jesus preached and gave his allegiance to “the kingdom of the heavens,” “the kingdom of God.” Following Jesus’ footsteps as sincerely dedicated Christians, Jehovah’s witnesses have no alternative but to keep separate, “without spot from the world.” Since they can give their allegiance only to Jehovah God and his kingdom, they feel obligated to refrain from participating in any action that gives such devotion to political leaders. So they remain neutral as to the political affairs of
    Malawi, even as they do regarding the political affairs of every other land in which they happen to live. It is because of this Christian neutrality that they are being persecuted in Malawi.—Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15; Jas. 1:27.

    Who Are the Persecutors?
    The people of Malawi are known for being a peace-loving people, and they know that the Christian witnesses of Jehovah are also lovers of peace. Then why the persecution? It is due to the spirit of nationalism that has inflamed so many of the people of this country, especially the youth who are members of the Youth League. They bear a resemblance to the Nazi youths who committed so many depredations against the Jews when Hitler was in power in Germany, and to the Red Guards who have terrorized so many in Communist China who, they felt, were not sufficiently nationalistic. To be good citizens, in the eyes of these groups, it is not enough to pay taxes and obey all the laws of the land, which Jehovah’s witnesses have been faithfully doing, but everyone must now become a member of the Malawi Congress Party and prove it by buying a membership card and wearing a badge with President H. Kamuzu Banda’s picture on it.

    Even months before Malawi gained its independence on July 6, 1964, the Christian witnesses of Jehovah, from January to March 1964, experienced a wave of brutal violence and ruthless persecution because of their stand in this matter. At that time 1,081 of their homes and more than 100 of their Kingdom Halls were burned down or otherwise demolished. Also, 588 fields of maize (corn), millet, beans, casava and cotton were destroyed. Many Witnesses were hospitalized, women were raped, and eight Witnesses died from beatings or were killed outright. For weeks many of these persecuted Christians had to sleep out in the open wilderness bush with hardly anything to eat, while enduring the rigors of the rainy season and the threat of snakes and other wild animals.

    At that time Jehovah’s witnesses in Malawi through their representatives did their best to try to reason with the responsible ones in government positions so they would call a halt to this violent persecution of innocent men, women and children. On one occasion they had a meeting with the then Minister of Home Affairs, Yatuta Chisiza (who later rebelled against Dr. Banda, the president, and recently was shot by Malawi’s security forces). He made it clear that he was highly displeased that the Witnesses were the only ones that refused to buy Malawi Congress Party membership cards and he told the spokesman for the Witnesses that unless he changed his mind he would “experience a very sad accident.” Here again it was to be seen that the Witnesses were being persecuted because of their neutral stand regarding national politics.

    However, in spite of the unsatisfactory manner in which this meeting with Minister Chisiza, as well as a previous one with President Banda, ended, the situation in Malawi for the Witnesses improved. For the most part they were able to return to their villages and rebuild their homes and Kingdom Halls. Many of those who had once mistreated Jehovah’s witnesses now came and asked forgiveness, and a number of them are now Witnesses themselves. During this time the Witnesses in Malawi might be said to have “entered into a period of peace, being built up,” much as did the early Christians under similar circumstances.—Acts 9:31.

    “A Bolt Out of the Blue”
    In view of the reasonably favorable conditions under which the Christian witnesses of Jehovah were able to carry on their ministerial activities in Malawi during 1965 and 1966, it was indeed like “a bolt out of the blue” when the Witnesses tuned in their radios on April 23, 1967, and heardPresident H. Kamuzu Banda make an attack upon them. In a message of about a half hour in length, in which he discussed various problems facing his nation, he spent one-third of the time making an extended attack upon the Witnesses. Among other things he stated:

    “I have been alarmed by the reports reaching me from almost every district, of deliberate provocation of my supporters, members of the Malawi Congress Party, particularly members of the Youth League and Young Pioneers by Jehovah’s Witness. This deliberate provocation of the members of my party . . . takes various forms. One form is for Jehovah’s Witness themselves to refuse to pay tax. But instead of just stopping at refusal to pay tax themselves, the Jehovah’s Witness stop or try to stop others from paying tax. And when Party officials tell them not to tell people not to pay tax, they become deliberately abusive to Party Leaders. . . . Another form is for
    the Jehovah’s Witness to stop members of the Malawi Congress Party from renewing their membership cards or buying new Malawi Congress Party membership cards. Again, when the leaders of the Malawi Congress Party.... tell them not to stop the people from renewing theirMalawi Congress Party membership cards or buying new cards, Jehovah’s Witness say, ‘Yes,I want you to beat me, you cannot stop me from stopping them. I am doing this deliberately so that you can beat me, so that I can take you to the police.’.... The government will protect every law- abiding citizen from molestation by anyone and everyone . . . but it will not give licence to Jehovah’s Witness to provoke anyone.... I want to make this quite clear. Jehovah’s Witness must stop provoking others, provoking people. And if they do not stop and they continue doing that, then they must not complain if and when they are beaten up.”
    Known for Paying Their Taxes
    The charges that the Christian witnesses of Jehovah do not pay their taxes and that they try to keep others from paying their taxes are not true. Repeatedly their literature points out the Scriptural obligation of Christians to pay taxes as required by the governments of this system of things, for Jesus ordered the paying of taxes when he said, “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things
    to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” And so did the apostle Paul when he wrote to the Christians at Rome: “Render to all their dues, to him who calls for the tax, the tax; to him who calls for the tribute, the tribute.”—Matt. 22:15-22; Rom. 13:7.

    In fact, so well known is the reputation of Jehovah’s witnesses in Malawi as taxpayers that when Dr. Banda accused them of not paying taxes many persons openly disagreed with him. More than that, if any Christian witness deliberately refused to pay taxes or interfered with others’ paying their taxes, he would be disfellowshiped or excommunicated from his congregation. In this regard it is indeed of interest that one of the false charges brought against Jesus Christ, the Son of God, at the time of his arrest was, “This man we found subverting our nation and forbidding the paying of taxes to Caesar.” (Luke 23:2) Now the government of Malawi has chosen to pursue the same course as those men who brought about the death of Jesus Christ.

    Those familiar with Jehovah’s witnesses in Malawi report that the Witnesses not only conscientiously pay their taxes but also shoulder their share of the burdens of the so-called self-help projects of the government by helping to build schools, hospitals, and so forth. In fact, Jehovah’s witnesses in Malawi have been so exemplary in supporting these projects that many
    village headmen and chiefs have publicly praised the Witnesses for their conscientious efforts in these matters. They have even been praised by many government officials and native authorities for being the best taxpayers in the country. And when a Portuguese official checked on a large group of those who had been forced to flee to Mozambique he found that every last one of them was able to produce his Tax Receipt, thus exposing as a deliberate lie the charge that they “refuse to pay tax.”

    No Evidence of Provocation
    The charge that the Witnesses deliberately provoke others to attack them is equally without foundation in fact. Remember, these nationalistic youths and others did not stop with merely beating up the witnesses of Jehovah, but carted away the possessions of the Witnesses by the truckload. They burned down the homes and Kingdom Halls of the Witnesses, raped women and even killed men. Surely it strains credulity to charge that the Witnesses deliberately invited these
    depredations against themselves. The very fact that thousands of the Witnesses took refuge in Mozambique of itself stamps the charge of provocation as false.

    Furthermore, there is legal evidence to the contrary, for this was not the first time the charge was made. Thus acting judge Mr. L. M. E. Emejulu, in the judgment of the Criminal Case No. 46 of 1964, when Dafter Biziweck and seven others were convicted of the murder of Elton Mwachande, one of Jehovah’s witnesses in Malawi, said:

    “I see no evidence of provocation. It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses determinedly propagated their faith and sought to win converts, but they were alive to their civic duties and they did all they were asked to do, including community development. They only refused to join any political party. . . . There is no evidence that they ever forced or tried to force anyone to accept their religion. The evidence is to the contrary. The Constitution guarantees them the right to belong or not to belong to any political party. I find no evidence of provocation.”
    Regarding this particular murder trial The Glasgow Herald (Scotland) on Thursday, October 29,
    1964, reported:
    “Eight Sentenced to Death. Murder of Jehovah’s Witness. Blantyre, Malawi. Wednesday.—Eight men, including three officials of the Malawi Congress Party, were sentenced to death by the High Court this week for the murder of a Jehovah’s Witness who refused to register for the General Elections. Mr. Elton Barnett Mwachande was ‘cut down and killed,’ the evidence showed, at Mlanje last February when Jehovah’s Witnesses fled from men who were burning houses of people who refused to register.—Reuter.”
    Witnesses Banned
    Although the position of Jehovah’s witnesses had thus been legally upheld in 1964, on September 18, 1967, The Times, of Blantyre, Malawi, carried a large front-page headline: “MALAWI MAY OUTLAW JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES.” It reported that the Congress Party, in its annual meeting held in mid-September (at which President Banda and all his cabinet ministers were present), had passed twelve Resolutions, the eighth of which stated: “Recommend strongly that the Jehovah’s
    Witnesses denomination be declared illegal in this country as the attitude of its adherents is not only inimical to the progress of this country, but also so negative in every way that it endangers the stability and peace and calm which is essential for the smooth running of our State.”

    The Times also reported Dr. Banda’s comments on this Resolution, which were broadcast to the entire nation:

    “They are causing trouble everywhere . . . The Government may pass a law in such a way that every area or district can decide for itself whether it wants Jehovah’s Witnesses or not. If the people in any area say ‘No,’ then there would be no Jehovah’s Witness there. Any area would have the right to decide for itself and if the Jehovah’s Witness did not pack up they would go to prison.”

    “Causing trouble everywhere”—how that calls to mind a similar charge in apostolic times! That Christian missionary and apostle to the nations, Paul, was likewise falsely accused of stirring up trouble everywhere.—Acts 24:2-9.

    The Resolution that the Malawi Congress Party had adopted at its political convention recommending that Jehovah’s witnesses be banned was not discussed nor debated in Malawi’s fifty-member Parliament, 90 percent of whom profess to be Christians. Moreover, instead of leaving it to each district, the government decided to ban Jehovah’s witnesses throughout the land, even as reported by The Times, October 23, 1967, under large bold-faced headlines: “MALAWI BANS ‘DANGER SECT.’” It went on to say:

    “The Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organization has been declared ‘dangerous to the good government of Malawi’ and is therefore now an unlawful society. This announcement is made in a special Government Gazette Supplement published at the weekend. The notice No. 235, is signed personally by the President Dr. Banda, and declares that the action is taken under Section 70 (2) (ii) of the Malawi Penal Code. The effect of the announcement is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses may no longer hold meetings, sell or distribute literature or collect money . . . The law affecting unlawful societies states that anyone who manages or assists in the management of an unlawful society is guilty of an offense and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years. Other sections of the law state that no member may allow a meeting of the society or of members of the society to be held in ‘any house, building or place’ belonging to him or occupied by him. The penalty here is a jail term for seven years. The Penal Code also provides for the search by police of any premises belonging or occupied by the society or its members. No member may display signs or ‘shout or utter any slogan or make any sign’ associated with the society. The law also provides for the appontment of an officer to wind up the affairs of an unlawful society.”
    Two weeks later, on November 7, the eight European and American Witness missionaries, some of whom had been in the country for as long as ten years, were given the ultimatum: “You are hereby ordered to leave Malawi within 24 hours of the serving of this Notice and Order unless you sooner appeal to a Magistrate.” At the same time the modern and well-equipped headquarters’ building of Jehovah’s witnesses in Malawi was taken over by the government and put under police control. All literature published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was confiscated.

    However, the missionaries, knowing that they had done nothing wrong, made no move to leave the country voluntarily. The following day the police came and arrested all eight of them. Four were at once put on planes under police escort. The remaining four were held in Chichiri Prison from whence, two days later, they were deported to Mauritius.

    The Times, November 9, carried a large front-page headline, “3,000 IN COURT AS LEADERS LEAVE,” in which also were published pictures and the details of the deportation. It further reported that a member of the Malawi Parliament, J. D. Gunda, “over the weekend warned former members of the banned Jehovah’s Witnesses religious sect of the heavy penalties which would be imposed on those who deliberately violated the Law by continuing to be members of the proscribed organization.”

    The Charges Change
    Although Jehovah’s witnesses had been charged with being a dangerous organization that is lawless and provokes others to lawless deeds, they are now being accused as simply being “foolish and stupid”—surely no great crime! Thus The Malawi News, the mouthpiece for the government, devoted the entire upper third of the front page of its issue of November 24, 1967, to headlines about Jehovah’s witnesses, such as “JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES ARE FOOLISH AND STUPID.” “THEY ARE NOT WORTH THE BOTHER OF ANYBODY.”

    Among other things it reported: “The President Ngwazi [the Conquerer] said that these people were foolish and stupid because if they did not believe in the government but belonged to heaven why did they send their children to school, come to hospitals when sick, and sought protection from the police after ‘one small scratch.’” But ridicule is no substitute for logic, nor can it nullify the facts. As taxpayers Jehovah’s witnesses have the perfect right to send their children to public schools, they have the right to come to government hospitals when they are sick and to appeal to the police for protection when attacked. But it may well be asked, Is it just “one small scratch” when houses are robbed and burned down, when women are raped and men are beaten unconscious and even killed?

    Why should Jehovah’s witnesses be banned one month because of being a dangerous sect, and then the very next month be described simply as “foolish and stupid”? Further, if the Witnesses are truly “not worth the bother of anybody,” why has the government taken such drastic action against them?

    It is evident that the government’s position is not a consistent one. Why? Because the charges are not true. The fact is that a campaign of public vilification is now being carried on in a desperate endeavor to justify the actions of the government before the public.

    The President of Malawi
    Since such shocking persecutions are going on in Malawi, some readers might think that President Banda is merely a provincial chieftain who knows little of democratic principles. But such an opinion would be mistaken. Not only has Dr. Banda had the full benefits of a Western education—having attended three institutions of higher learning in the United States and practiced
    medicine in London for seven years—but he has also had much contact with Christendom’s religions. It was the Methodists, we are told, that helped him get to the United States in the first place and that put him through high school. He has also been an elder of the Church of Scotland, one of the stricter Protestant denominations. He has said, “I am a man of God.”

    At a private luncheon with U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, June 8, 1967, he stated that his sentiments were those of the man who once said: “I know not what course others may take, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” He further told President Johnson: “I would like you to know, Mr. President, that whatever it may cost me, I always do what I think is the right thing according to my conscience.”—United States Department of State Bulletin, July 10, 1967.

    Dr. Banda has been highly praised by Europeans. At the time of Malawi’s gaining her independence a prominent British official stated: “Thank heaven for Dr. Banda; he is a man of unblemished integrity, perhaps the most remarkable living African.” (The Christian Century, June 17, 1964) European officials employed in Malawi, who are the backbone of trading and
    government administration, have been highly pleased with Dr. Banda. They have said: “You can be anything you like here except a Communist. We dread to think of anything happening to Banda.” (Newsweek, July 8, 1966) But now a person cannot legally be one of Jehovah’s witnesses in Malawi!

    It was to the well-educated president of Malawi, Dr. Banda, that a letter was sent on November 4, 1967, by the presiding minister of Jehovah’s witnesses in Malawi. The letter called the President’s attention to the shocking persecution of the Christian witnesses of Jehovah, and respectfully requested him to use his power to stop this violence. It reminded him that he had said that “this government will protect every law-abiding citizen from molestation by anyone and everyone.” In closing, it urged him to use all his “powers to stop such acts of violence against innocent people.” But he turned a deaf ear to this plea.

    Public’s Reaction to Ban
    How have the common people of Malawi felt about this ban? Here again we can find a Biblical comparison. Just as in the days of Jesus’ apostles the ruling powers among the Jews banned their preaching whereas the common people heard them gladly, so in Malawi. For one thing, the radical nationalistic youth groups, far from being popular with the people, are feared by them.
    Some of these common people, when they heard of the ban of Jehovah’s witnesses, exclaimed: “Now we know that we must be coming to the end of the world, when God’s people are forbidden in our country!” And when a senior police officer heard of the deportation order for the foreign missionaries of Jehovah’s witnesses, he asked with excitement in his voice, “Where is all this going to end?”—Acts 5:28; 6:7.

    After the first warning of a ban on Jehovah’s witnesses, a prominent member of the Malawi Congress Party went during the middle of the night, even as Nicodemus came to Jesus under the cover of night, and asked: “What must I do to become one of Jehovah’s witnesses? I would rather be dying in prison with you than on the outside with no Jehovah’s witnesses around.” (John 3:1, 2) On the last day that the missionaries were still in Malawi, a young man came to their headquarters’ office in Blantyre to ask forgiveness for the way he had mistreated the Witnesses. He said that from now on he was going to change his ways and expressed a heartfelt desire to study the Bible with one of the Witnesses.

    Fighting Against God
    Jehovah’s witnesses are not going to quit serving God just because their Christian course is not approved by President Banda. They are like the first-century Christians who put obedience to God ahead of obedience to men. When they were haled before the rulers who said to them: “We positively ordered you not to keep teaching on the basis of this name, and yet, look! you have
    filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring the blood of this man [Jesus Christ] upon us,” the apostles fearlessly replied: “WE MUST OBEY GOD AS RULER RATHER THAN MEN.”—Acts 5:28, 29.

    On the other hand, neither will they rise up in revolt against the government and repay evil for evil. The weapons that these Christians use are not fleshly but spiritual, primarily the Word of God. They recognize the obligation to imitate the model their Leader, Jesus Christ, set for them, concerning whom it is written: “When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening.” They do not seek to avenge themselves but “yield place to the wrath,” knowing it is written: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah.”—1 Pet. 2:21, 23; Rom. 12:19.

    No, it is not from Jehovah’s witnesses that President Banda and his supporters have anything to fear, but from Almighty God himself. They have set themselves in opposition to Jehovah God and made themselves fighters against God. (Acts 5:38, 39) But they do not need to continue in that course. They can change. Will they? That is a question that must be faced, not only by Dr. Banda, but by every member of his cabinet, by every member of Malawi’s Parliament as well as by every official in Malawi. Yes, that question must be faced by everyone who supports him as a member of his political party.

    Others Care What Happens
    The President of Malawi may believe that what he does as president of Malawi is his business, and not that of the rest of the world. But ought he not be helped to realize that the rest of the world takes note when justice is trampled underfoot and innocent Christians are cruelly abused? Ought he not to have forcefully driven home to him the fact that he has not made himself more popular either with his own people or with right-minded persons in any other part of the world by the action he has taken?

    If you are a person who prizes freedom, truth and righteousness, it is your privilege to speak out on behalf of those who are so cruelly mistreated because of their faith in God. Letters of protest may be directed to:

    His Excellency
    Dr. H. Kamuzu Banda
    President of Malawi
    P.O. Box 53
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

    The Hon. J. D. Msonthi, M.P.
    Minister of Transportation and Communication
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

    The Hon. G. W. Kumtumanji, M.P.
    Minister of Local Government
    and Minister of Health
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

    The Hon. M. Q. Y. Chibambe, M.P.
    Regional Minister for the Northern Region
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

    The Hon. A. M. Nyasulu, M.P.
    Minister of State
    in the Ministry of External Affairs

    P.O. Box 943,
    Blantyre, Malawi, Central Africa
    The Hon. G. Chakuamba, M.P.
    Minister of Education
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

    The Hon. Aleke Banda
    Minister of Economic Affairs and of Works
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

    The Hon. J. T. Kumbeweza, M.P.
    Regional Minister for Central Region
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

    The Hon. J. Z. U. Tembo, M.P.
    Minister of Finance
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

    The Hon. A. A. Muwalo
    Minister of State in the President’s Office
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

    The Hon. A. B. J. Chiwanda
    Minister of Labor
    Zomba, Malawi, Central Africa

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    Dear Avitar,

    Here is something I just found, Notive it gives the ages of required service for Mexico, as well as the length they must serve. Thought it may be helpful in gathering your data.

    Sincerely,

    Lady Liberty

    PS. I highlighted all the palces key words were used to help you scan through it easier.

    COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
    Fifty-third session
    Item 23 of the provisional agenda

    THE QUESTION OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE

    Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to Commission resolution 1995/83

    CONTENTS

    Introduction

    I. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RECEIVED

    A. Existence of conscription
    B. Liability for service
    C. Length of service
    D. Recognition of conscientious objection E. Known cases of conscientious objection F. Alternative and development service
    G. Possible penalties for refusal to perform military service H. Dissemination of information on conscientious objection

    II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Annexes

    Introduction

    1. In its resolution 1995/83 of 8 March 1995 the Commission on Human Rights appealed to States, if they had not already done so, to enact legislation and to take measures aimed at exemption from military service on the basis of a genuinely held conscientious objection to armed service. Further, it reminded States with a system of compulsory military service, where such provision had not already been made, of its recommendation that they introduce for conscientious objectors various forms of alternative service compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection and that they refrain from subjecting conscientious objectors to imprisonment. The Commission also emphasized that such forms of alternative service should be of a non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive nature. In addition, the Commission appealed to Member States that did not have such a system to establish, within the framework of their national legal system, independent and impartial decision-making bodies with the task of determining whether a conscientious objection was valid in a specific case.

    2. In the same resolution, the Commission requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Commission at its fifty-third session an update of the information provided in the annexes to the report by Mr. Asbjørn Eide and Mr. Chama Mubanga-Chipoya, entitled Conscientious Objection to Military Service (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.85.XIV.1), taking into account information from Governments and non-governmental organizations and any further information available to him. In accordance with this request, the Secretary-General invited all States, by a note verbale dated 21 November 1995, to forward to him any comments or information that they might have on the above-mentioned issues. By 15 December 1996, replies had been received from the Governments of Angola, Argentina, Colombia, Germany, Jordan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Nepal, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Zambia and Zimbabwe. In addition, the Governments of Austria, Denmark, France, Lithuania and Ukraine sent information relating to the annexes of the report referred to above.

    3. Requests for comments and information were also sent, on the same date, to the relevant non-governmental organizations. As of 15 December 1996, information had been received from Amnesty International, the Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers) (information compiled by itself, the European Council of Conscripts Organizations and the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors), Service Peace and Justice in Latin America, War Resisters International and the World Council of Churches.

    4. With the end in view of updating those annexes, information about military service, conscientious objection and/or alternative service submitted by States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Human Rights Committee was also studied. However, only a few pertinent references were found.

    5. The present report summarizes the comments and information received and updates the annexes to the above-mentioned report. [back to the contents]

    I. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RECEIVED

    A. Existence of conscription

    6. Conscription exists in the following States, the Governments of which sent replies: Angola, Colombia, Germany, Mexico, Peru, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.

    7. In some of those States efforts have been undertaken or are under way to establish regulatory guidelines for military conscription and legal protection of young persons liable for conscription.

    8. In Argentina, by Decree No. 1537, dated 29 August 1994, the President of the Republic made military service voluntary. Subsequently, by Act No. 24,429, adopted on 14 December 1994 and promulgated on 5 January 1995, the National Congress regulated voluntary military service. However, the Congress reserved the right to conscript 18-year-olds for a period of service of up to one year. Such conscription may be ordered when, for specified reasons, an inadequate number of volunteers present themselves for military service.

    9. In Colombia, in accordance with article 216 of the 1991 Political Constitution, all Colombians are obliged to take up arms when the public need so requires for the defence of the nation's independence and public institutions. In the light of this provision of the Constitution, the Congress of Colombia adopted Act No. 48 of 3 March 1993, which regulates recruitment and mobilization. Article 3 of that Act reiterates the constitutional provision providing for compulsory military service.

    10. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, adopted on 25 October 1992, provides that "citizens of the Republic of Lithuania are obliged to serve in the national defence service or to perform alternative service in the manner established by law". The conditions and order of conscription are defined in the Temporary Act on National Defence Service of 17 July 1990, adopted by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania, and the Law on Alternative (Labour) Service of 16 October 1990. The Temporary Act on the National Defence Service provides that the National Defence Service shall consist of an active military service and a military reserve service. The National Defence Services are formed in accordance with the principles of conscription, voluntariness and employment agreements.

    11. Article 5 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States stipulates that "only the following public services may be obligatory, subject to the conditions set forth in the respective laws: military service, ...". From the foregoing it is apparent that military service is established as a public service, which is obligatory subject to the conditions laid down in the respective laws, which in this case are the Military Service Act and the regulations relating thereto. In compliance with article 31 of the Constitution, all Mexican citizens of military age are required to be present at the time, date and place stated by the respective authorities in order to receive physical and military training and thereby fulfil their civic obligation.

    12. In Peru, articles 163 and 173 of the Political Constitution of the State stipulate that military service is of an obligatory character. The Compulsory Military Service Act and amendments thereto establish that any person over the age of 18 years must enrol in the Military Register, and may, following a thorough medical examination, then be classified as "selected", "not selected" or "exempt". Citizens in the "selected" category whose names are drawn by lot may then be asked to remain on call.

    13. The Constitution of Romania, in article 52.2, provides that "military service is compulsory for all Romanian male citizens aged 20, except in cases provided for by the law".

    14. In Sweden, the Total Defence Duties Act (1994: 1809) concerning the compulsory duty to serve in the defence of the country entered into force on 1 July 1995. The obligation to serve is called total defence duty; it applies to every Swedish citizen from the commencement of the calendar year in which he or she attains the age of 16.

    15. The Governments of Jordan, Malta, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe stated that there was neither compulsory military service nor conscription in their countries, which had established voluntary military service. According to the South African reply, although conscription no longer exists in practice in this country, the Defence Act still has to be amended to that effect. [back to the contents]

    B. Liability for service

    16. In Colombia, in accordance with article 10 of Act No. 48/93, every Colombian male is required to define his military status as of the date of his majority - that is, at the age of 18 - with the exception of students preparing for the baccalaureate, who are to define that status as soon as they receive their diploma. The military duty of Colombians ends on the day on which they reach 50 years of age.

    17. Paragraph 4 of the General Provisions of the Temporary Act on the National Defence Service in Lithuania provides that every male citizen of Lithuania aged 19 and eligible for service in terms of health may be liable to active military service. Those who wish may serve in the army from the age of 18. Persons can be conscripted to active military service up to the age of 27. Paragraph 7 of the Act stipulates that female citizens of Lithuania aged 19 to 45 who have special education may be enrolled on the active list with their consent and serve in auxiliary or special services. Persons who have graduated from higher educational institutions and completed a course in military education may be released from military service. Persons who have been convicted to more than three years of imprisonment cannot be called for active military service.

    18. In South Africa, all references to the exclusive liability for military service of white males are no longer applicable.

    19. All Swedish citizens between the ages of 16 and 70 are liable for total defence duty. A corresponding obligation applies to aliens residing in Sweden. Service is undertaken as compulsory military service, compulsory civilian service or compulsory national service. The latter imposes a duty to serve only during times of alert. The Total Defence Duties Act provides that every Swedish man is liable to attend military inspection and complete compulsory military service or compulsory civilian service with long basic training. Weapon-free service is no longer regulated as an alternative to compulsory military service but as one or several alternative forms of service within the framework of the total defence duty. Women may voluntarily take an examination for enlistment in compulsory military service or in compulsory civilian service with long basic training. [back to the contents]

    C. Length of service

    20. In Colombia, in accordance with article 11 of Act No. 48/93, the duration of compulsory military service is 12 to 24 months, as determined by the Government. Article 13 of the Act defines four basic modalities for the performance of compulsory military service, according to which regular army soldiers perform from 18 to 24 months of service; holders of the baccalaureate 12 months; baccalaureate police assistants 12 months; and peasant-soldiers 12 to 18 months.

    21. Article 15 of the Temporary Act on the National Defence Service in Lithuania, establishes the length of service in the active military forces as 12 months. The length of service upon agreement has to be established by the agreement of the parties. Citizens who have graduated from higher educational institutions but have not completed a course of military education serve in the army for six months. The length of the alternative (labour) service is 24 months. The length of service for citizens who have graduated from higher schools is 12 months.

    22. Under articles 14 and 15 of the Military Service Act of Mexico, the ways in which national military service is performed by Mexicans of military age are as follows:

    (a) Enlistment in the National Military Service companies. These companies are made up exclusively of volunteers. To perform this form of military service a written application is required from the person concerned. His training activities are distributed in the following manner: military training, 60 per cent; social work, 10 per cent; and recreation, 30 per cent. These activities are undertaken over periods of three months.

    (b) Enlistment in training centres. Personnel who, by ballot, are required to perform their military service on this basis do so from April to September in training centres and are enlisted in Mexican army, marine or navy units; they attend a total of 136 hours of sessions on Saturdays. Most activities involve social work, civic questions and military ceremonial.

    (c) On call. For a period of eight months, these persons remain in contact with a Mexican consulate abroad or their local military regions or zones. They simply remain on call. [back to the contents]

    D. Recognition of conscientious objection

    23. The concept of conscientious objection has been recognized by the majority of the States which sent replies. As a result of such recognition, alternative social service has been or is being introduced in a number of States as an alternative to armed service for conscientious objectors. This development can be considered to be in conformity with relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights.

    24. In Argentina, during military conscription those persons (conscientious objectors) who, from "profound religious, philosophical or moral convictions", are unable to perform obligatory military service are required to perform alternative social service in such areas as public health and the environment. The law further states that in time of war, alternative social service will consist of activities related to civil protection and defence.

    25. Article 28 of Act No. 48/93 of Colombia contains a list of the grounds for exemption from compulsory military service during peacetime. Conscientious objection to compulsory military service is not among them. Furthermore, the highest court in Colombia competent to oversee human rights, the Constitutional Court, made, in Decision No. T 409 of 8 June 1992, the following statement with regard to conscientious objection:

    "The obligation to perform military service is based on the premise that collective interest prevails over individual interest, and if, furthermore, by requiring such service the State cannot disregard the equality of all persons before the law, the dictates of which must be objective and impartial, then it is clear that for conscientious objection to be invoked, it must be specifically institutionalized in the national legislation concerned. Military service in itself - that is, as a generically considered activity - has no connotations that might affect the scope of individual conscience, and the service may therefore be performed by carrying out various functions chosen from among those required for the maintenance and continuity of the armed forces."

    26. Pursuant to the basic right contained in article 4, paragraph 3 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, no one may be compelled against his or her conscience to render war service. "War service" in this sense includes all activities which have a direct bearing on the use of weapons of war. In practice in the Federal Republic of Germany, the right to refuse to render war service is broadly interpreted and permits reasons of religion, morals and philosophy to be invoked. Refusal to render military service is conditional on a corresponding decision based on conscience on the part of the individual. Entitlement to refuse to render military service is decided on in a procedure which is laid down in statutes.

    27. The laws of the Republic of Lithuania do not define the status of persons who cannot serve in the active military forces because of conscientious objection. Only the Law on Alternative (Labour) Service provides for the possibility for such persons to perform alternative (labour) service. There is no detailed list of convictions on the grounds of which a person might be released from active service because of conscientious objection. In each concrete case the Recruitment Commission, upon the receipt of a person's application to perform alternative (labour) service, has to review it and give an answer to the person within 20 days. The applicant, upon receipt of a decision of the Commission which does not satisfy him, may appeal against it to the local court.

    28. Voluntary military service performed in Mexico focuses mainly on services and activities under the heading of social work for the benefit of the neediest communities.

    29. The Ministry of National Defence of Romania has prepared a draft law entitled "Population preparedness for defence". This draft stipulates that "citizens who, on the ground of religious beliefs, refuse to perform combatant military service, shall perform alternative military service. The form in which alternative military service shall be performed is to be adopted by Governmental decision". The draft law has already been adopted by the Romanian Senate and is currently under debate in the Defence Commission of the Chamber of Deputies. The Ministry of National Defence is at present implementing an administrative decision of its own, establishing a temporary framework covering the issue of "Conscientious objection to military service". In accordance with this decision "Romanian citizens who, on the grounds of religious beliefs, refuse to perform combatant military service are to be registered and shall be called to perform alternative military service after the entering into force of the Law on Population Preparedness for Defence".

    30. In Slovakia, citizens may refuse the exercise of basic military service in accordance with the Act on Civil Service No. 207/1995, and they may perform civil service by undertaking activities for a period twice as long as the basic military service, which, in accordance with Directive No. 115/1993, of the Government of the Slovak Republic of 27 April 1993, lasts 12 months.

    31. There is no compulsory military service in Zimbabwe. However, should the need arise for such military service, the Government will ensure that the National Service Act of 1979 and relevant measures are implemented with respect to exemption from military service on the basis of a genuinely held conscientious objection to armed service. The National Service Act provides, in section 24, for exemption from military service on the grounds that a person is a conscientious objector to military service. A person is entitled to apply to the Exception Board for exemption from military service if "his bona fide religious beliefs inhibit his rendering National Service".

    32. Service, Peace and Justice in Latin America (SERPAJ) pointed out that it had contributed to the agreement reached at the forty-third session of the Commission on Human Rights, in 1987, that conscientious objection derives directly from respect for human rights. Through its work, SERPAJ has realized that young people believe that conscientious objection is a question of freedom and consider it a corollary of democracy.

    33. Amnesty International regards a conscientious objector imprisoned for refusing to perform military service as a prisoner of conscience. [back to the contents]

    E. Known cases of conscientious objection

    34. The Government of Colombia pointed out that the Office of the Ombudsman was aware of four official cases of conscientious objection to compulsory military service. In those cases the four parties concerned, with the assistance of the Office of the Ombudsman, had filed an application for the protection of fundamental rights. The results were not favourable for the objectors, as the presiding judges did not allow the objection.

    35. In 1995, 160,569 German conscripts filed an application for refusal to render war service. Roughly 90 per cent of the applications were recognized. In that year, some 130,080 persons had performed substitute service.

    36. The Government of the Netherlands provided the following numbers for eligible conscripts, applicants for conscientious objector status and recognized applications over the period 1987-1994:

    19871988198919901991199219931994
    Eligible conscripts110 856118 566115 980110 40495 41587 97286 36266 631
    Applicants for conscientious objector status2 9362 7052 8994 0504 2914 2264 1293 944
    Recognized applications2 1842 083 1 9871 9571 8981 5981 5261 376

    However, as the Friends World Committee for Consultation reported, conscription has been abolished in the Netherlands.

    37. In Slovakia, since the Act on Civil Service No. 73/1990 of the Code was adopted, basic military service has been refused in legal ways by 29,384 citizens. Declarations of refusal of basic military service were gradually revoked by 25,063 citizens. During the period of 1993-1995 a total of 15,188 declarations of refusal to exercise basic military service were submitted: 1,114 in 1993; 5,739 in 1994; and 8,335 in 1995. All the citizens concerned based their refusal to perform the basic military service on conscience and religious belief. [back to the contents]

    F. Alternative and development service

    38. The Government of Colombia stated that there was no alternative service in Colombia, since conscientious objection was not allowed. Nevertheless, without directly invoking the objection, it is possible for an "objector" to perform his military service without the use of arms and without taking part in combat or hostilities. The modalities of such service are as follows:

    Auxiliary service in the National Police, established by Act No. 2 of 1977;

    Auxiliary service for holders of the baccalaureate at the Instituto Nacional Penitenciario, as provided for in article 50 of Act No. 65 of 1993; and

    Environmental service for the environmental authorities performed by holders of the baccalaureate under article 102 of Act No. 99 of 1993.

    39. In Germany, anyone whose entitlement to refuse to perform military service is recognized must render substitute service. Article 12, paragraph 2 of the Basic Law provides:

    "A person who refuses, on grounds of conscience, to render war service involving the use of arms may be required to render a substitute service. The duration of such substitute service shall not exceed the duration of military service. Details shall be regulated by a statute which shall not interfere with the freedom to take a decision based on conscience and shall also provide for the possibility of a substitute service not connected with units of the Armed Forces or of the Federal Border Guard."

    Section 1 of the Act on Refusal on Grounds of Conscience to Render War Service involving the Use of Arms of 28 February 1983 provides as follows:

    "Anyone who on grounds of conscience refuses to participate in any use of violence between States and for this reason, calling upon article 4, paragraph 3, first sentence of the Basic Law, refuses to render war service involving the use of arms, instead of military service shall render substitute service not connected with the Armed Forces under article 12, paragraph 2 of the Basic Law."

    The version of section 1 of the same Act which was published on 30 June 1986 provides that in "substitute service, persons recognized as entitled to refuse to render war service shall carry out duties which serve the general good, with priority being given to the social area". Instead of substitute service, persons recognized as entitled to refuse to perform war service may also perform service as civil defence or disaster prevention auxiliaries or in the development services or in a service abroad intended to further the peaceful coexistence of the peoples.

    40. Article 12 of chapter II of the Law on Alternative (Labour) Service of Lithuania provides that alternative (labour) service is carried out on the sites and objects indicated by the Government. Citizens may perform alternative (labour) service under conditions established in agreements drawn up by the Department of Defence. These agreements shall be concluded with municipalities, enterprises, offices and organizations. The Temporary Act on Military Service provides that alternative (labour) service shall be carried out in State labour detachments and in humanitarian and public services. Citizens performing alternative (labour) service receive 85 per cent of their pay, but no less than the State-established minimum for subsistence (art. 27). [back to the contents]

    G. Possible penalties for refusal to perform military service

    41. Unwillingness to perform compulsory military service in Colombia may lead to the unwilling recruit being tried for disobedience and possibly being sentenced to a prison term of from one to three years. If an individual simply fails or ignores his obligation to define his military status and lets time pass, he may be fined when he does define it, even if he is not recruited. If he fails to appear before the recruitment authorities to define his military status, he runs the risk of being recruited by force if he is discovered and cannot submit documents proving that he has defined his military status or that he is covered by one of the reasons for exemption. There is one known case in which an "objector" deserted after joining the service and was sentenced for desertion.

    42. Article 79 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Lithuania stipulates that evasion of the regular draft or alternative (labour) service may be punishable by imprisonment for up to two years. If a conscript deliberately injures himself, simulates illness, forges documents or avoids performing his duty in any other way, he may be committed for from one to five years of imprisonment. According to article 80, evasion of mobilization to the National Defence Service may be punishable by imprisonment for from two to five years.

    43. Current Mexican legislation does not establish penalties for conscientious objectors, since conscientious objection does not constitute an offence. Nevertheless, other grounds for total or partial exemption are provided for, notably incapacity of a physical, moral and social nature, together with proof of such incapacity, in article 10 of the Military Service Act and chapter V of the regulations relating thereto.

    44. In South Africa, there is a moratorium on prosecution for not reporting for military service. Therefore, all references to prosecutions, sentences and detention for failing to report for military service (except in cases of absence without leave and desertion) are no longer applicable. [back to the contents]

    H. Dissemination of information on conscientious objection

    45. Conscientious objection is regulated by relevant legislation. Public awareness of that legislation is to be considered as an important factor.

    46. In Austria, conscripts are informed about the possibility of submitting a civilian service statement. Further, a special information office for civilian service matters has been installed at the Federal Ministry of the Interior and several private organizations also make information available about the civilian service.

    47. In Colombia, since conscientious objection is not allowed, the Government does not disseminate information on the subject. Nevertheless, the Office of the Ombudsman does plead cases of conscientious objection and, if necessary, provides information and advice to those who request it; it has also encouraged information meetings and debates on the matter. [back to the contents]

    II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    48. A number of Governments considered that the Commission on Human Rights had introduced the concept of conscientious objection to military service, and reported that they had recognized the right to conscientious objection in their legislation and practice. Some States have agreed to introduce and are enacting laws providing for forms of alternative service which are compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, such forms of alternative service being in principle of a non-combatant or civilian nature, in the public interest and of a non-punitive nature.

    49. These States have confirmed thus that the right to refuse military service for reasons of conscience is inherent in the concept of freedom of thought, conscience and religion as laid down in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This freedom is also set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 18). The approach they have taken is in full conformity with General Comment No. 22 adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its forty-eighth session on article 18 of that Covenant, in which the Committee inter alia expressed the view that a right to conscientious objection could be derived from article 18 and that, when that right was recognized by law or practice, there should be no differentiation among conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs; likewise, there should be no discrimination against conscientious objectors because they had failed to perform military service.

    50. In other countries, only limited grounds for refusal, such as religious motives, are deemed acceptable, and those who object on other grounds may be imprisoned. One Government reported that it did not recognize conscientious objection, which "may lead to an unwilling recruit being tried for disobedience and possibly being sentenced to a prison term". In this connection, it may be pointed out that the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1995/83 appealed to States, if they had not already done so, to enact legislation and to take measures aimed at exemption from military service on the basis of a genuinely held conscientious objection to armed service; it also urged States in their law and practice not to differentiate between conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs nor to discriminate against recognized conscientious objectors for failure to perform military service.

    51. Some further conclusions may be drawn on the basis of the information received from Governments and non-governmental organizations, a summary of which is given in the annexes to this report.

    52. There is a tendency towards the abolition of conscription. There are only 69 States or territories in which there is no conscription, in comparison with 67 such States and territories listed in Mr. Eide's and Mubanga-Chipoya's report. However, there are now 13 States in which selective conscription exists but military service is voluntary in principle.

    53. The number of States in which provision is made for civilian and/or unarmed military service has increased from 15 to 24. At the same time, the number of countries in which there is conscription without alternative service has increased from 40 to 47. This can be explained by the fact that the relevant legislation of a greater number of States was reviewed in the present report than in the previous one.

    54. Two States have conscription in law, but do not enforce it. Information was also received that legislation has been elaborated and submitted for adoption in a number of States in which conscription exists in order to provide for recognition of conscientious objection. [back to the contents]

    Annex I

    SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON CONSCRIPTION, CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE, AND ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

    A. General observations

    1. This annex constitutes an update of the information provided in the annexes to the report by Mr. Asbjørn Eide and Mr. Chama Mubanga-Chipoya (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.85.XIV.1). New information collected since the issue of that report has been taken into account and, when necessary, previous data have been modified accordingly. However, as in the case of that report, this annex should not be considered as containing exhaustive information on the global situation regarding conscription, conscientious objection to military service, and alternative service. It is rather intended to provide an updated illustration of the recent reports (see para. 3 below), based on data collected from available governmental and non-governmental sources.

    2. The information summarized in this annex concerns the following questions, for which data are available in various countries:
    (a) Existence of conscription;

    (b) Liability for service;

    (c) Length of service;

    (d) Recognition of conscientious objection: recognition; grounds recognized as valid; timing of the claim;

    (e) Known cases of conscientious objection;

    (f) Alternative and development services;

    (g) Possible penalties for refusal to perform military service;

    (h) Dissemination of information on the possibility of obtaining conscientious objector status.

    3. The following sources were used in the summary:

    Replies from Governments

    "The role of youth in the promotion and protection of human rights, including the question of conscientious objection to military service", reports of the Secretary-General containing replies from Governments on the question (E/CN.4/1995/99 and Add.1, E/CN.4/1993/68 and Add.1-3) and relevant information sent by Governments mentioned in the introduction.

    Relevant recent information submitted to the Human Rights Committee by States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    Non-governmental organizations

    • Amnesty International (AI)
    • European Council of Conscripts Organizations (ECCO)
    • Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC)
    • International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHFHR)
    • National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors (NISBCO)
    • Service, Peace and Justice in Latin America (SERPAJ)
    • War Resisters International (WRI)
    • World Council of Churches (WCC)

    B. Summary of available data(1)

    1. Existence of Conscription

    • Afghanistan: In view of the present conflict it is difficult to assess whether there is a coherent policy of conscription superseding policy of the previous regime under which conscription existed (AI).
    • Albania: Conscription exists (AI and WRI).
    • Algeria: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Angola: Conscription exists.
    • Antigua and Barbuda: No conscription.
    • Argentina: Military service is voluntary. Law No.24.429, promulgated on 5 January 1995, establishes a voluntary military service yet reserves for the Congress the right to conscript 18-year-olds for a period of service not exceeding one year. Such conscription may be ordered, when for specified reasons, an inadequate number of volunteers present themselves for military service.
    • Armenia: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Australia: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Austria: Conscription exists.
    • Azerbaijan: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Bahamas: No conscription (AI).
    • Bahrain: No conscription.
    • Bangladesh: No conscription (AI).
    • Barbados: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Belarus: Conscription exists.
    • Belgium: Conscription was abolished as of 1 January 1994 under the so-called Delacroix Bill of 6 July 1993 (WRI).
    • Belize: Military service is voluntary (NISBCO).
    • Benin: Selective conscription (FWCC).
    • Bhutan: Selective conscription (FWCC).
    • Bolivia: Conscription exists (AI and NISBCO).
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina: Conscription exists (WRI).
    • Botswana: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Brazil: Conscription exists.
    • Brunei Darussalam: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Bulgaria: Conscription exists (WRI).
    • Burkina Faso: No military conscription (AI).
    • Burundi: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Cambodia: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Cameroon: No conscription.
    • Canada: No conscription (AI).
    • Cape Verde: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Central African Republic: Selective conscription (FWCC).
    • Chad: Selective conscription.
    • Chile: Conscription exists (AI and NISBCO).
    • China: Selective conscription (FWCC).
    • Colombia: Conscription exists.
    • Congo: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Costa Rica: No conscription.
    • Côte d'Ivoire: Selective conscription (FWCC).
    • Croatia: Conscription exists.
    • Cuba: Conscription exists (AI and NISBCO).
    • Cyprus: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Czech Republic: Conscription exists.
    • Democratic People's Republic of Korea: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Denmark: Conscription exists.
    • Djibouti: No conscription (AI).
    • Dominican Republic: Conscription exists (NISBCO).
    • Ecuador: Conscription exists.
    • Egypt: Conscription exists.
    • El Salvador: The Salvadoran Constitution and the law on military service establish obligatory military service. In practice, since the end of the armed conflict in January 1992, military service has been performed on a voluntary basis. The law on military service is currently undergoing revision (NISBCO).
    • Equatorial Guinea: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Estonia: Conscription exists (ECCO).
    • Ethiopia: Conscription exists. Compulsory military service is provided for by Proclamation No. 238 of 1983 (AI).
    • Federal Republic of Germany: Conscription exists.
    • Fiji: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Finland: Conscription exists.
    • France: Conscription exists.
    • Gabon: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Gambia: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Georgia: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Ghana: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Greece: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Grenada: Conscription does not exist, as there is no military service (NISBCO).
    • Guatemala: Conscription exists. The Global Human Rights Accord signed in March 1994 by representatives of the Government, the URNG guerillas, and the United Nations stipulated that a new law on military service would be enacted in order to end the practice of forced recruitment (NISBCO).
    • Guinea: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Guinea-Bissau: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Guyana: No conscription (NISBCO).
    • Haiti: No conscription (NISBCO).
    • Honduras: Decree No. 24-94 was passed in May 1994 establishing a voluntary military service during peacetime. The amendment reserves for the Congress the right to conscript (NISBCO).
    • Hong Kong: No conscription (AI).
    • Hungary: Conscription exists (AI and WRI).
    • Iceland: No conscription (AI).
    • India: No conscription (AI).
    • Indonesia: Selective conscription (FWCC).
    • Iran (Islamic Republic of): Conscription exists (AI).
    • Iraq: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Ireland: No conscription.
    • Israel: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Italy: Conscription exists (WRI).
    • Jamaica: No conscription (NISBCO).
    • Japan: No conscription (AI).
    • Jordan: Jordanian Conscript Service was suspended indefinitely in 1992 and all members of the armed forces are regular volunteers.
    • Kazakstan: Conscription exists
    • Kenya: No conscription (AI).
    • Kuwait: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Kyrgyzstan: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Lao People's Democratic Republic: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Latvia: Conscription exists (ECCO).
    • Lebanon: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Lesotho: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Liechtenstein: No conscription (AI).
    • Lithuania: Conscription exists.
    • Luxembourg: No conscription (AI).
    • Madagascar: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Malawi: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Malaysia: No conscription (AI).
    • Maldives: No conscription (AI).
    • Mali: Selective conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Malta: No conscription.
    • Mauritania: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Mauritius: No system of military service.
    • Mexico: Conscription exists.
    • Moldova: Conscription exists (WCC).
    • Monaco: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Mongolia: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Morocco: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Mozambique: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Myanmar: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Namibia: Conscription exists in law (AI).
    • Nepal: No conscription.
    • Netherlands: No conscription (FWCC).
    • New Zealand: No conscription (AI).
    • Nicaragua: No conscription (NISBCO).
    • Niger: Selective conscription (FWCC).
    • Nigeria: No conscription.
    • Norway: Conscription exists.
    • Oman: No conscription.
    • Pakistan: No conscription (AI).
    • Panama: Conscription exists.
    • Papua New Guinea: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Paraguay: Conscription exists.
    • Peru: Conscription exists.
    • Philippines: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Poland: Conscription exists (WRI).
    • Portugal: Conscription exists.
    • Qatar: No conscription.
    • Republic of Korea: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Romania: Conscription exists.
    • Russian Federation: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Rwanda: No conscription (FWCC).
    • San Marino: Military service does not exist.
    • Saudi Arabia: There is no conscription.
    • Senegal: Selective conscription.
    • Seychelles: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Sierra Leone: There is no conscription (FWCC).
    • Singapore: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Slovakia: Conscription exists.
    • Slovenia: Conscription exists.
    • Somalia: Conscription exists (AI).
    • South Africa: No conscription.
    • Spain: Conscription exists.
    • Sri Lanka: No conscription (AI).
    • Sudan: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Suriname: No conscription (FWCC)
    • Swaziland: No conscription.
    • Sweden: Conscription exists.
    • Switzerland: Conscription exists (WRI).
    • Syrian Arab Republic: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Thailand: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Conscription exists (WRI).
    • Togo: Selective conscription (FWCC).
    • Tonga: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Trinidad and Tobago: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Tunisia: Conscription exists.
    • Turkey: Conscription exists (WRI).
    • Turkmenistan: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Uganda: No conscription.
    • Ukraine: Conscription exists.
    • United Arab Emirates: No conscription (AI).
    • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: No conscription (WRI).
    • United Republic of Tanzania: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • United States of America: No conscription.
    • Uruguay: No conscription (NISBCO).
    • Uzbekistan: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Vanuatu: No conscription (FWCC).
    • Venezuela: Conscription exists (NISBCO).
    • Viet Nam: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Yemen: Conscription exists (AI).
    • Yugoslavia: Conscription exists.
    • Zaire: Conscription exists (FWCC).
    • Zambia: No conscription.
    • Zimbabwe: No conscription.

    2. Liability for service

    • Afghanistan: Men above the age of 18 (AI).
    • Albania: Men above the age of 18 (AI).
    • Algeria: Men above the age of 19 (FWCC).
    • Angola: All men from 18 to 50 and women with "special qualifications of interest to the Armed Forces" are liable for military service (Law No. 12/82), but those over 30 serve only in the Reserve Force. (There are reports, however, of children as young as 16 being forced into conscription) (AI).
    • Argentina: Volunteers over 19 years of age (FWCC).
    • Australia: Volunteers over 16 years of age (FWCC).
    • Austria: Men aged between 18 and 35 (AI).
    • Bahrain: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Bangladesh: Volunteers over 17 years of age (FWCC).
    • Belgium: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Bhutan: Men above the age of 18 and volunteers above the age of 16.
    • Bolivia: Men between the ages of 19 and 21 (AI).
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina: All men aged 18 to 55. Women aged 18 to 27 can volunteer provided they are not pregnant and do not have a child under 7 years of age (WRI).
    • Brazil: All nationals who are 19 years old.
    • Bulgaria: All men between the ages of 18 and 30 (WRI).
    • Burundi: Volunteers over 16 years of age (FWCC).
    • Cambodia: Men over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Canada: Volunteers over 16 years of age (FWCC).
    • Cape Verde: Currently all men, although the law may change under the new Government (AI).
    • Chad: Military service is performed in Chad only by the students of the National College of Administration and of the National College of Physical Education and Sports, upon completion of their training.
    • Chile: Everyone must register at the age of 18 and may be called up between the ages of 19 and 30 (Decree Law 2306, Recruitment Law, arts. 19 and 28) (AI).
    • China: Men aged 18 to 22 may be drafted into the army; men aged 18 to 35 may be drafted into the militia, or into the army during wartime. Although all male citizens aged 18 must register for military service, it is unclear whether all those registered are actually called for military training (AI).
    • Colombia: All males between the ages of 18 and 50.
    • Congo: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Côte d'Ivoire: Men over 21 years of age (FWCC).
    • Croatia: All men aged between 16 and 60. In some circumstances women are also liable for call-up for certain duties (WRI).
    • Cuba: Believed to be men over the age of 16 and under 50 (AI).
    • Cyprus: All men between 18 and 50, except religious ministers, monks and deacons of officially recognized religions (AI and WRI).
    • Czech Republic: All men between the ages of 19 and 28. All men are called up after finishing (high) school (WRI).
    • Denmark: Men over the age of 18, the reserve obligation being until the age of 50 (AI and WRI).
    • Dominican Republic: All men at the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • Ecuador: All men at the age of 19 (FWCC).
    • Egypt: Men aged between 18 and 30 (AI).
    • El Salvador: Unmarried men between the ages of 18 and 20 who are members of poorer socio-economic groups (AI).
    • Equatorial Guinea: Men at the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • Estonia: All young men above the age of 18 are liable for compulsory military service. Every young man over the age of 17 can start the compulsory military service as a volunteer. In such case, the law gives him the possibility of choosing the place where he wants to serve. From the ages of 18 to 27, every young man has to perform active service (ECCO).
    • Ethiopia: Men between the ages of 18 and 30, although there are reports of juveniles as young as 12 being conscripted. There is an obligation to perform reserve duties from the age of 30 to the age of 50, and since June 1990 retired members of the armed services are called up also (AI).
    • Federal Republic of Germany: Men aged between 18 and 28, though the obligation itself lasts until the age of 45 (WRI).
    • Finland: Men between the ages of 20 and 30 and, in exceptional circumstances, also men between the ages of 17 and 60 (WRI).
    • France: Men aged between 18 and 29.
    • Greece: All men between the ages of 18 and 40 (WRI).
    • Guatemala: Men between the ages of 18 and 30. Heads of families and middle-class students are usually exempt (AI).
    • Guinea Bissau: 18-year-old males (AI).
    • Haiti: Believed to be all men over 18 (AI).
    • Honduras: Men between the ages of 18 and 30 (AI) and volunteers at the age of 17 (FWCC).
    • Hungary: All men between the ages of 17 and 50. Conscripts are called up at the age of 18 (WRI).
    • Indonesia: Volunteers at the age of 17 (FWCC).
    • Iran (Islamic Republic of): All men over 18 (AI).
    • Iraq: Men at the age of 19 and volunteers at the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • Ireland: Volunteers above the age of 17.
    • Israel: Men and women over 18, although non-Druze Israeli Arabs and Druze women are exempt. Male religious scholars may be granted postponement (AI).
    • Italy: Men aged between 18 and 45 (AI).
    • Japan: Volunteers over the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • Jordan: Men over 18 (AI).
    • Kuwait: Men at the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • Lao People's Democratic Republic: Males over 15; upper limits unknown (FWCC).
    • Latvia: All men between the ages of 19 and 50. The military service itself is performed between the ages of 18 and 25 (ECCO).
    • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Men and women between the ages of 18 and 35 (AI).
    • Lithuania: Every male citizen between the ages of 19 and 27. Those who wish may serve from the age of 18.
    • Luxembourg: Volunteers over 17 years of age (FWCC).
    • Malawi: Volunteers over 17 years of age (FWCC).
    • Mauritania: Volunteers over 16 years of age (FWCC).
    • Mauritius: There is no system of military service.
    • Mexico: Men from the ages of 18 to 40 (AI).
    • Monaco: Volunteers over 19 years of age (FWCC).
    • Mongolia: Men at the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • Morocco: Men at the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • Mozambique: Men aged 18 to 30, under Law No. 4/78 (Lei do Servico Militár Obrigatorio) and Decree No. 3/86 (Regulamento Basico do Militár nas Forces Armadas de Mocambique) (AI).
    • Myanmar: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Namibia: Men at the age of 16 (FWCC).
    • Netherlands: Volunteers over 16 years of age (FWCC).
    • New Zealand: Volunteers over 16 years of age (FWCC).
    • Nicaragua: Volunteers over 17 years of age (FWCC).
    • Nigeria: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Norway: All men between the ages of 18 and 44 (AI). Volunteers over 17 years of age (FWCC).
    • Pakistan: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Paraguay: All men over 18 years of age; women as non-combatants during international war (AI).
    • Peru: All men over 18 and volunteers over 16 years of age (FWCC).
    • Philippines: All men over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Poland: All men between the ages of 18 and 28 (WRI).
    • Portugal: All men between the ages of 18 and 45 (WRI).
    • Republic of Korea: All men over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Romania: All men between the ages of 20 and 35 (WRI).
    • Russian Federation: All men over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Rwanda: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • San Marino: Military service does not exist.
    • Senegal: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Singapore: All men over 18 years of age (AI and FWCC).
    • Slovakia: All men between the ages of 18 and 30 (WRI).
    • Slovenia: All men aged from 18 to 26.
    • Somalia: All men aged between 18 and 40; women aged between 18 and 30, although in practice they are not conscripted (AI).
    • South Africa: Volunteers over 17 years of age (FWCC).
    • Spain: All men over 19 years of age (WRI).
    • Sri Lanka: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Suriname: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Sweden: All men aged between 19 and 47 (WRI).
    • Switzerland: All male citizens are liable to perform regular periods of military service from the age of 20 to the age of 50 (55 for officers). Reserve obligations apply up to the age of 60 (WRI).
    • Syrian Arab Republic: Men over the age of 19 (FWCC).
    • Tunisia: Men over the age of 20 and volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Turkey: All men over 20: in principle until the age of 65; in practice men over 46 years of age are no longer called up (WRI).
    • Ukraine: All men aged between 18 and 27.
    • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Volunteers over the age of 16 (FWCC).
    • United Republic of Tanzania: Men over the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • United States of America: Volunteers over the age of 17 (FWCC).
    • Uruguay: Volunteers over 18 years of age (FWCC).
    • Venezuela: Men over the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • Viet Nam: Men over the age of 18 (FWCC).
    • Yugoslavia: All men aged between 18 and 27. Thereafter, service conscripts become reservists until the age of 60 (WRI).
    • Zaire: Men over the age of 18 (FWCC).

    3. Length of service

    • Afghanistan: See remarks in annex 1.
    • Albania: Two or three years depending on the branch of the armed forces
    • (AI and FWCC); one year according to WCC.
    • Algeria: Six months (FWCC).
    • Argentina: From 6 to 14 months (FWCC).
    • Armenia: Two years (FWCC).
    • Austria: Eight months.
    • Azerbaijan: Two years (FWCC).
    • Belarus: 18 months (FWCC).
    • Belgium: In 1993 military service was from 8 to 12 months (FWCC).
    • Bhutan: From one to three months (FWCC).
    • Bolivia: One year (AI and FWCC).
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina: There is no set period for military service (WCC).
    • Brazil: One year (FWCC); 18 months for alternative service.
    • Bulgaria: 18 months; 12 months for university graduates (WRI).
    • Cambodia: Three years, extendable by an additional six months (AI).
    • Cape Verde: Two years (AI).
    • Chile: Up to two years (Decree Law 2306, art. 35) (AI).
    • China: From three to four years (FWCC).
    • Colombia: Article 11 of Act No. 48/93 provides that the duration of compulsory military service is from 12 to 24 months. For details see paragraph 20 of the present report.
    • Croatia: From 10 to 15 months (WRI). The period of civilian service is 15 months (E/CN.4/1993/68, Croatia).
    • Cuba: Three years (AI and FWCC).
    • Cyprus: 26 months (WRI).
    • Czech Republic: 12 months of compulsory military service; 18 months of alternative service (WRI).
    • Denmark: From 3 days to 14 months.
    • Ecuador: One year (FWCC).
    • Egypt: Three years (FWCC).
    • El Salvador: See remarks in annex 1.
    • Estonia: From 9 to 12 months (WCC).
    • Ethiopia: From 12 to 18 months (FWCC).
    • Federal Republic of Germany: 12 months (WRI).
    • Finland: From 8 to 11 months (WRI).
    • France: 10 months with the Police nationale or with the Sécurité civile; 16 months with the Service de l'aide technique et de la coopération; 20 months with the Service des objecteurs de conscience).
    • Georgia: Two years (FWCC).
    • Greece: 21 months in the army, 23 months in the air force and 25 months in the navy (WRI).
    • Guatemala: 30 months (FWCC).
    • Guinea: Two years (FWCC).
    • Honduras: Two years (FWCC).
    • Hungary: One year (WRI).
    • Indonesia: Two years (FWCC).
    • Iran, (Islamic Republic of): Two years (and reserve duty) (AI).
    • Iraq: Two years, plus reserve service (AI).
    • Israel: Three years for men and two years for women, plus reserve duty of about one month in every year until the age of 54 (AI).
    • Italy: One year (WRI).
    • Kuwait: Two years (FWCC).
    • Lao People's Democratic Republic: 18 months (FWCC).
    • Latvia: 18 months (ECCO).
    • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: From three to four years (FWCC).
    • Liechtenstein: The army was abolished in 1868 (WRI).
    • Lithuania: One year. Citizens, who graduated from higher educational institutions but have not completed a course of military education, serve in the army for six months. The length of the alternative (labour) service is 24 months.
    • Mexico: One year (FWCC).
    • Moldova: One year (WCC).
    • Mongolia: Two years (FWCC).
    • Morocco: 18 months (FWCC).
    • Mozambique: Two years (AI).
    • Niger: Two years (FWCC).
    • Norway: The length of alternative service is 16 months, whereas the length of military service is 12 to 15 months depending on the branch of the armed forces.
    • Paraguay: From 18 to 24 months (FWCC).
    • Peru: Two years (FWCC).
    • Poland: From 1 year to 18 months (WRI).
    • Portugal: Four months for ground service, extended to eight months in the army and to one year in the airforce and navy (WRI).
    • Republic of Korea: From 30 to 36 months (FWCC).
    • Romania: 12 months; 18 months in the navy. Academics have to perform military service for six months (WRI).
    • Russian Federation: 18 months (FWCC).
    • Senegal: Two years (FWCC).
    • Seychelles: Two years (FWCC).
    • Singapore: Two years' ordinary military service; three years' officer training (AI).
    • Slovakia: One year (WRI).
    • Slovenia: Six to seven months (WRI).
    • Somalia: Two years; 18 months for graduates of higher educational institutions (AI).
    • Spain: Nine months (WRI).
    • Sweden: Seven and a half to 15 months, 10 to 15 months for officers and possibly 18 to 20 months in the navy (WRI).
    • Switzerland: The basic military training lasts four months. Then conscripts must undertake 8 training courses of 20 days each before they are 42. Finally, before they are 50 they have to complete a total of a further 13 days military training (WRI).
    • Syrian Arab Republic: 30 months (FWCC).
    • Thailand: Two years (FWCC).
    • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Nine months (FWCC).
    • Togo: Two years (FWCC).
    • Turkey: 18 months (WRI).
    • Turkmenistan: 18 months (FWCC).
    • Ukraine: From one to two years; three years for volunteers. The length of alternative service is twice that of military service.
    • United Republic of Tanzania: Two years (FWCC).
    • Uzbekistan: 18 months (FWCC).
    • Venezuela: Two years (FWCC).
    • Viet Nam: Three years (FWCC).
    • Yemen: From two to three years (FWCC).
    • Yugoslavia: One year (WRI).

    D. Recognition of conscientious objection: grounds recognized as valid: timing of claim for objector status

    • Afghanistan: Not recognized (AI).
    • Albania: Not recognized (WCC).
    • Angola: "There are no problems with conscientious objection to military service in Angola. Those who refuse to bear arms are asked to serve in the administrative sector" (E/CN.4/1995/99).
    • Antigua and Barbuda: "The issue of conscientious objection does not apply" (E/CN.4/1995/99).
    • Argentina: Conscientious objection is recognized. See paragraph 24 of the present report. Excerpts of relevant legislative provisions are included in document E/CN.4/1993/68: Argentina.
    • Austria: Conscientious objection is recognized. For details see E/CN.4/1993/68/Add.1: Austria. The time-limit for raising conscientious grounds which are incompatible with military service has been reduced by the Civilian Service Act Amendment 1994 to one month from the termination of the pre-conscription registration procedure. It is intended to extend that time-limit until one day before the call-up order is received, in the context of the 1996 Amendment to the Civilian Service Act that is currently under preparation and will take effect as of 1 January 1997.
    • Belarus: "The duration and procedures regulating alternative service will be determined by the Republic of Belarus Alternative Service Act and other legislative acts drawn up by the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Belarus and submitted to the Supreme Council of the Republic for consideration". (E/CN.4/1995/99: Belarus).
    • Bolivia: Not recognized (AI).
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina: Not recognized (WRI).
    • Brazil: The Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, in article 143, paragraph 1, stipulates: "It is within the competence of the Armed Forces, according to the law, to assign to alternative service those who, in times of peace, after being enlisted, claim imperatives of conscience, which shall be understood as originating in religious creed and philosophical or political belief, for exemption from essentially military activities." The constitutional text has been regulated by Decree No. 8.239 of 4 October 1991, and by Regulation No. 2.681 of 28 July 1992, which set out the rules and modalities of alternative service for conscientious objectors. The alternative service comprises activities of an administrative, social or charitable nature. Individuals enrolled in alternative service are entitled to all rights and prerogatives enjoyed by citizens enlisted in the regular military service, including remuneration equivalent to the soldier's allowances (E/CN.4/1995/99: Brazil).
    • Bulgaria: Recognized under article 59 of the Constitution of 1991 (WRI).
    • Cambodia: Not recognized (AI).
    • Chile: Not recognized (NISBCO).
    • China: Not recognized. According to the law, military service is a duty for "all citizens of the People's Republic of China without distinction as to race ... or religious creed" (AI).
    • Colombia: Not recognized (NISBCO). Article 28 of Act No. 48/93 contains a list of the grounds for exemption from compulsory military service during peacetime. Conscientious objection to compulsory military service is not among them. For further details see paragraph 25 of the present report.
    • Croatia: Recognized in the 1990 Constitution (art. 47). Conscientious objection is allowed for those who, because of their religious or moral beliefs, are not prepared to perform military duties in the armed forces (WRI). Recognized, but only in peacetime (WCC).
    • Cuba: Not recognized. Under Article 54 of the Constitution, refusal to defend the country with arms on grounds of religious belief is a punishable offence (AI).
    • Cyprus: Recognized by law 2/92 of 9 January 1992 for reasons based on religious, ethical, moral and political grounds (WRI).
    • Czech Republic: The institution of refusal to perform the basic (alternative) military service or military exercise for reasons of conscience has been introduced. This is provided for in Law No. 18/1992 Coll. on non-military service, which took effect on 16 January 1992. Under section 9 of Law No. 69/1993 Coll. on the establishment of ministries and other central organs of State administration of the Czech Republic, non-military service falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic (E/CN.4/1995/99/Add.1: Czech Republic).
    • Democratic People's Republic of Korea: Not recognized (AI).
    • Denmark: Danish legislation recognizes conscientious objection to military service. The conditions are stated in legal order No. 191 of 2 April 1993. Conscientious objector status is granted to a person who objects to military service based upon his conscience. This can be for religious or ethical reasons. An application based solely on political reasons will be refused. (For further details see E/CN.4/1995/99: Denmark).
    • Dominican Republic: Not recognized (NISBCO).
    • Ecuador: Not recognized (NISBCO).
    • Egypt: Not recognized (AI).
    • El Salvador: See remarks in annex 1.
    • Estonia: Recognized on religious and ethical grounds (WCC).
    • Ethiopia: Not recognized (AI).
    • Federal Republic of Germany: Pursuant to the basic right contained in article 4, paragraph 3 of the Basic Law, no one may be compelled against his or her conscience to render war service. "War service" in this sense includes all activities which have a direct bearing on the use of weapons of war. In practice, in the Federal Republic of Germany, the right to refuse to render war service is broadly interpreted and permits reasons of religion, morals and philosophy to be invoked. (For further details, see para. 26 of the present report and E/CN.4/1995/99: Germany).
    • Finland: Recognized by the Civilian Alternative Service Act (1723/1991) for a person "affirming that serious conscientious reasons based on religious or ethical conviction prevents him from doing his military service ..." (art. 1, WRI). (See also E/CN.4/1993/68: Finland).
    • France: Recognized by law No. 83-605 of 8 July 1983 as one of the civilian forms of national service (governmental reply and WRI).
    • Greece: Law 731/77, amended in 1977, allows those objecting to military service on religious grounds to perform unarmed service for four and a half years. In 1988, it was amended again to allow unarmed service also for objectors on non-religious and moral grounds (WRI).
    • Guatemala: See remarks in annex 1.
    • Guyana: Recognized (NISBCO).
    • Hungary: Recognized by the National Defence Law of 1993 (WRI).
    • Iran (Islamic Republic of): Not recognized (AI).
    • Iraq: Not recognized (AI).
    • Ireland: There is no specific regulation for conscientious objection, but a soldier objecting to the role of the army can ask for discharge at any time (WRI).
    • Israel: Not recognized, although exemptions may be granted for religious, family or other reasons, including unsuitability for reasons of conscience (AI).
    • Italy: Recognized as of 1972 by law 772, as amended by law 6965 of December 1974, for those declaring themselves opposed to the use of arms in all circumstances for conscientious reasons based on religious, philosophical or moral convictions. Political grounds alone are not recognized (AI and WRI).
    • Kazakstan: Not recognized in general. Under the terms of the Universal Military Obligation and Military Service Act, which entered into force in Kazakstan on 1 January 1993, persons in holy orders and holding official office in one of the registered religious faiths are exempted from military service (see E/CN.4/1995/99).
    • Kuwait: Not recognized (AI).
    • Lao People's Democratic Republic: Not recognized (AI).
    • Latvia: Recognized for "religious or pacifist objectors" but not for selective objectors. Although the required term of alternate service is 24 months, the Ministry of Defence stated that a new bill is being drafted that will make the length of military and alternative service the same (WRI).
    • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Not recognized (WRI).
    • Lithuania: Recognized. See paragraph 27 of the present report.
    • Mexico: Not recognized (NISBCO).
    • Moldova: Recognized (WCC).
    • Morocco: Not recognized (WRI).
    • Mozambique: Not recognized (AI).
    • Netherlands: "Serious" conscientious objection is recognized and is defined as "insurmountable conscientious objection to the personal performance of military service in connection with the use of violence in which a person may become involved as a consequence of his serving in the military forces of the Netherlands" in the Law on Conscientious Objection to Military Service of September 1962, as subsequently amended in 1978. Selective objection (for example to the use of nuclear arms) is also possible (AI).
    • Norway: The first paragraph of section 1 of the Act relating to Exemption from Military Service for Reasons of Personal Conviction of 19 March 1965, in which the requirements for exemption are laid down, was amended by Act No. 42 of 22 June 1990. The provision now reads: "If there is reason to presume that a conscript is unable to perform military service of any kind without coming into conflict with his serious convictions, inter alia that he is thereby compelled to compromise beliefs that are of fundamental importance to him and that are related to the use of weapons of mass destruction as they could be expected to be used in modern-day defence, he shall be exempted from such service by the competent Ministry or by judgement pronounced pursuant to the provisions of this Act." (For further details see E/CN.4/1993/68: Norway).
    • Paraguay: Articles 37 and 129 of the Constitution explicitly recognize a right of conscientious objection. Article 37 reads "conscientious objection for ethical and religious reasons is recognized ...". Article 129, paragraph 5, states "those that declare their conscientious objections will perform service benefiting the civilian population through centres [...] under civil jurisdiction". There is no law regulating conscientious objection and alternative service in Paraguay. The constitutional guarantees for conscientious objectors remain unenforced (NISBCO).
    • Peru: Not recognized (NISBCO).
    • Poland: Recognized by the Constitution. Its current legal basis is the Law on Civilian Service of 21 November 1992 (WRI).
    • Portugal: Recognized by Act 7/92 of 2 May 1992 and Decree-Law No. 191/92 of 2 September 1992. (For further details see E/CN.4/1993/68/Add.3: Portugal).
    • Republic of Korea: With respect to alternative service for conscientious objectors to military duty, the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have the duty of national defence under the conditions prescribed by law (art. 39 (1)). The Supreme Court has decided that a Jehovah'sWitness, who refuses the duty of national defence is subject to the punishment prescribed in the Military Service Act, and the so-called "conscientious decision" is not included in the freedom of conscience protected by article 19 of the Constitution (Supreme Court decision, 22 July 1969, 69-TO-934) (CCPR/C/68/Add.1, para. 146).
    • Romania: A draft law is to be adopted on the subject. See paragraph 29 of the present report.
    • Russian Federation: Recognized by article 59 of the Constitution. However, there are still no legal mechanisms by which young men can exercise this constitutional right. A draft law is currently under consideration by the Duma (ECCO).
    • Senegal: Not recognized (E/CN.4/1995/99/Add.1).
    • Singapore: Not recognized (AI).
    • Slovakia: Recognized. Citizens can refuse to perform the basic military service in accordance with the Act on Civil Service No. 207/1995, and they can perform civil service by undertaking activities which last twice as long as the basic military service. The latter lasts 12 months under the Directive of the Government of the Slovak Republic of 27 April 1993, No. 115/1993.
    • Slovenia: Recognized by article 46 of the Constitution. (For details see E/CN.4/1993/68: Slovenia).
    • Somalia: Not recognized (AI).
    • Spain: Recognized by Law 48/1984 of 28 December 1984. Religious, ethical, moral, humanitarian, philosophical or other "similar" grounds are acceptable (AI).
    • Sweden: Recognized by section 1 of Non-Military Service Act of 1966. (For details see E/CN.4/1995/99: Sweden).
    • Switzerland: Recognized in the Military Penal Code. The sanction is compulsory labour for one and a half times the length of the military service refused. The military judge decides whether the person concerned is a conscientious objector or not. This is the "Barras regulation", which was included in Military Penal Code in July 1992. In 1993, a new law on substitutory service was proposed. It was enacted by parliament in October 1995. It came into force in 1996 (WRI).
    • Syrian Arab Republic: Not recognized (AI).
    • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Recognized (WRI).
    • Tunisia: Not recognized (E/CN.4/1993: Tunisia).
    • Turkey: Not recognized (WRI).
    • Ukraine: Recognized by the Ukrainian Alternative (Non-Military) Service Act, which defines the institutional and legal bases for such service and which came into force on 1 January 1992. It provides that alternative service shall, as a rule, be performed in the area where the person lives and only in State enterprises. The conditions of employment of persons performing such service are governed by Ukrainian labour law; in other words, they enjoy all rights on an equal footing with the enterprise's regular workforce. The Act stipulates that alternative service shall be performed in institutions in the fields of social welfare, health care or environmental protection, or in municipal or agricultural enterprises or organizations. The length of service is twice that of military service. (For further details see E/CN.4/1995/99/Add.1: Ukraine).
    • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Conscientious objection for professional soldiers is only possible on grounds of absolute and universal pacifism (WRI).
    • United States of America: Recognized by Department of Defense Directive 1300.6; however, there is no compulsory military service. The Directive provides for two classes of conscientious objector. The first class is comprised of those individuals who object to all wars of all kinds, regardless of location and circumstances, by reason of religious convictions. The second class of conscientious objectors consists of those individuals who are willing to serve in the armed forces in a non-combatant status. (For further details see E/CN.4/1995/99, paras. 57-64).
    • Venezuela: Not recognized (NISBCO).
    • Viet Nam: Not recognized (AI).
    • Yemen: Not recognized (AI).
    • Yugoslavia: Recognized for a recruit who for religious or other reasons of conscience does not want to do his military service carrying arms or wishes to serve it in civil service. He shall do his military service in the army of Yugoslavia and not carry arms, or in civil service for a duration of 20 months. (For further details see E/CN.4/1993/68: Yugoslavia).
    • Zimbabwe: Recognized by section 24 of the National Service Act of 1979. See paragraph 30 of the present report.

    5. Known cases of conscientious objection

    • Argentina: On 18 April 1989, in the Portillo case, the Supreme Court of Argentina recognized the principle, on the grounds of freedom of worship and conscience, that citizens are entitled to perform their national service without bearing weapons. The scope of this right is to be determined in the light of each particular case, although on the same grounds, and in the light of the Constitution alone, the Court also ruled that refusal to perform national service was not justified. The Supreme Court dismissed as irrelevant the lack of any legal provision expressly stipulating conscientious objection as a ground for exemption, on the basis that individual rights - whose enjoyment and exercise solely require that the authorities refrain from committing certain acts - must necessarily be asserted by the courts in respect of specific cases.

      Austria: In 1995, close to 6,000 conscripts were exempted from their obligation to do military service on the ground that they had submitted a civilian service statement.
    • Belarus: There are several options for a conscientious objector in Belarus at present, both of them unpleasant: if he is wealthy enough, he can buy for about 250 United States dollars a false medical certificate stating that he is not fit for the service or, if he is poor, he can go into hiding. It is estimated by the Belarus League for Human Rights that at the spring call-up in 1995, 30 per cent of conscripts refused to enter the service. Ninety-nine per cent of them are now in hiding, or they are feigning illnesses (including psychological illnesses) (ECCO).
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina: There are a number of Jehovah's Witnesses and some others who refuse to carry weapons and refuse to take part in the war. Some of the Jehovah's Witnesses are treated as draft evaders or deserters. There are also cases in which local military commanders have assigned Jehovah's Witnesses to non-combat duties, such as military cooks and kitchen helpers. Similar accommodations have been made for other minority group members and others who were able to make a compelling and convincing case to the local military commander who has the discretion to do this, but it is not available as a right (WRI).
    • Bulgaria: In October 1993, there were conscientious objectors among the 5,883 draft evaders (WRI).
    • Colombia: The Office of the Ombudsman was aware of four official cases of conscientious objection to compulsory military service. In those cases the four persons concerned, with the assistance of the Office of the Ombudsman, filed an application for the protection of their fundamental rights. The results were not favourable for the objectors, as the presiding judges did not allow the objection.
    • Cyprus: There are at least 16 conscientious objectors, imprisoned since 16 March 1992, who have been adopted as prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International (WRI).
    • Denmark: During the past 10 years the following numbers of conscripts have been transferred to civilian service:
      YearNo
      1981 660
      1982 513
      1983 431
      1984 378
      1985 282
      1986 329
      1987 460
      1988 595
      1989 676
      1990 614
      1991 525
      1992 579
      1993 714
    • Federal Republic of Germany: In 1995, 160,569 German conscripts filed an application for refusal to render war service. Roughly 90 per cent of the applications were recognized. In that year, some 130,080 persons were performing substitute service.
    • Finland: The number of persons applying for a civilian service status was relatively stable in the 1980s, amounting to some 400 to 500 persons a year. In addition, an average 800 reservists a year applied for non-military service. In 1991, 1,052 conscripts/military servicemen transferred to civilian service (plus 652 reservists). In 1992, the number will rise, since, on 6 October 1992, the Ministry of Labour statistics had already recorded 1,605 new persons undertaking civilian service (in addition to just over 300 persons from the reserve forces in complementary service) (see E/CN.4/1993/68: Finland).
    • France: The number of conscientious objectors was 1,316 in 1983 and 8,023 in 1994.
    • Greece: In 1995, some 360 conscientious objectors were in prison. All, except for one, were Jehovah's Witnesses who had religious objections to military service. At present the sole non-religious conscientious objector in prison is Nicos Karanicas. He was arrested on 25 August 1995, one day before the beginning of the European Conscientious Objectors Meeting (ECOM) on the island of Ikaria (which was subsequently disrupted by the Greek police). All other objectors are Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition, there are many non-religious conscientious objectors, some living in Greece, others living abroad, who have arrest warrants against them (IHFHR).
    • Hungary: Almost all applications (90 per cent) for substitutory service are granted if the word conscience is mentioned. According to the National Defence Law (art. 116), applications can be rejected when the applicant has a weapons permit or has committed a violent crime within a year prior to application (WRI).
    • Italy: From 90 to 97 per cent of applicants are granted conscientious objector status (WRI).
    • Kazakstan: Two conscientious objectors, Nikolay Protsenko and Arbem Maloeyev, were both sentenced to terms of imprisonment for refusing to perform compulsory military service in 1995 and 1994 respectively. Both men are Jehovah's Witnesses (AI).
    • Netherlands: The number of recognized conscientious objectors was 2,184 in 1987; 2,083 in 1988; 1,987 in 1989; 1,957 in 1990; 1,898 in 1991; 1,598 in 1992; 1,526 in 1993; and 1,376 in 1994.
    • Norway: The following statistics show the number of persons who applied for the status of conscientious objector, and the number of persons who were actually recognized as such in the period 1987-1990:

      YearNumber of applicantsNumber of applications withdrawn Number recognized
      19872 3602401 629
      19882 3602101 596
      19892 2592061 742
      19902 5481502 034
      19912 6663561 930

    • Poland: In 1992, approximately 50 per cent of the 6,000 applications were granted; in 1994, 60 per cent (WRI).
    • Russian Federation: Some reports state that a handful of conscientious objectors, after petitioning the local conscription commission to perform alternative civil service, have been permitted to serve in medical or fire corps of the military.
    • Slovakia: Since the Act on Civil Service No. 73/1990 of the Code was adopted, basic military service has been refused in a legal way by 29,384 citizens. Declarations of refusal of basic military service were subsequently withdrawn by 25,063 citizens. During the period 1993-1995, 15,188 declarations of refusal to perform the basic military service were submitted, 1,114 of them in 1993, 5,739 in 1994 and 8,335 in 1995.
    • Slovenia: Since 1991, about 200 conscripts have applied for conscientious objector status each year. However, the percentage grew from 1 per cent in 1993, to 2.5 per cent in 1994 and to 2.8 per cent in 1995 (WRI).
    • Spain: In 1990, 27,398 conscripts applied for conscientious objector status; in 1993, over 50,000; and in 1994, 70,000 (WRI).
    • Sweden: Since 1990, there have been about 200 conscientious objectors each year (WRI).
    • Switzerland: Of 534 objectors in 1989, 147 claimed religious motives, 75 ethical and 39 political; 363 were imprisoned. The following number of conscientious objectors were convicted for refusing military service (WRI):

      Year Total COsLabour sentencePrison sentence
      1991475212 (44.6 per cent)263 (55.4 per cent)
      1992433236 (54.5 per cent)197 (45.5 per cent)
      1993409268 (65.5 per cent)141 (34.5 per cent)
      1994239162 (67.8 per cent)77 (32.2 per cent)
      1995256177 (69.1 per cent)79 (30.9 per cent)

    • Turkey: At present Turkish law still does not allow for the possibility of refusing to do military service. However, many young men refuse to participate in the Turkish military's actions and subsequently evade the draft or declare themselves conscientious objectors. The Government of Turkey, in the past few years, has taken severe action against draft evaders and conscientious objectors. They now face fines and prison sentences. In fact, even persons who discuss the subject openly, as a number of journalists have done, are being prosecuted (IHFHR).
    • Ukraine: The position at 1 January 1994 was that 800 persons in Ukraine were performing alternative service. Every draft for military service includes an alternative service contingent averaging 300 persons. Thus, in the autumn 1993 draft, 321 persons were assigned to alternative service, as follows: social welfare, 31; health care, 53; environmental protection, 16; municipal works, 66; agriculture, 129; other, 26.
    • United States of America: Despite the fact that military service is now voluntary, military personnel who develop conscientious objections to military service may seek reassignment to non-combatant duties or discharge from the Armed Forces under Department of Defense Directive 1300.6 (NISBCO).

    6. Alternative and development services

    • Afghanistan: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Albania: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Angola: Those who refuse to bear arms are asked to serve in the administrative sector.
    • Argentina: Alternative service is recognized. (For details see E/CN.4/1993/68: Argentina).
    • Austria: Alternative service is available for recognized conscientious objectors. (For further details see E/CN.4/1993/68/Add.1: Austria).
    • Belarus: The national legislation provides for alternative service of 24 months in the construction industry (WCC).
    • Bolivia: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina: Some Jehovah's Witnesses are treated as draft evaders or deserters. There are also cases in which local military commanders assigned Jehovah's Witnesses to non-combat duties, such as military cooks and kitchen helpers (WRI).
    • Brazil: Decree No. 2.239 of 4 October 1991 and Regulation No. 2.681 of 28 July 1992 set out the rules and modalities of alternative service for conscientious objectors. Alternative service comprises activities of an administrative, social or charitable nature. (For further details see E/CN.4/1995/99: Brazil).
    • Bulgaria: The Law on National Defence of December 1995 recognized the right to alternative service but it did not include any implementation procedures (WRI).
    • Cambodia: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Canada: Alternative service is available (NISBCO).
    • Cape Verde: Civil national service is available (AI).
    • Chile: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • China: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Colombia: There is no alternative service, since conscientious objection is not allowed. Nevertheless, without directly invoking the objection, it is possible for an "objector" to perform his military service without the use of arms and without taking part in combat or hostilities. For further details, see paragraph 38 of the present report.
    • Croatia: The civilian service is performed as a rule within the Croatian Army in duties not involving carrying and using arms, but can also be performed in organizations with an office or a seat in the Republic of Croatia.
    • Cuba: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Cyprus: In January 1992 the House of Representatives passed legislation which recognized the right to conscientious objection to military service. It provides for "unarmed military service" inside and outside military camps. The legislation made provision for alternative service which was, however, out of line with international standards in a number of crucial respects (AI).
    • Czech Republic: Substitutory service is available and can be performed in public services (hospitals, etc.) (WRI).
    • Democratic People's Republic of Korea: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Denmark: Alternative service may be performed in institutions for children, young people and old people, institutions for mentally and physically disabled people, or cultural institutions such as museums, theatres, libraries, etc. It is also possible to work in peace organizations, organizations connected with the United Nations, the national church and environmental organizations. It is a condition, however, that the conscripts work as extras, i.e. they may not be employed in an approved vacant job and they may not be used in a job demanding a special skill or in an institution which they know or in which they have been employed. (For further details see E/CN.4/1995/99: Denmark).
    • Dominican Republic: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • Ecuador: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • Egypt: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • El Salvador: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • Ethiopia: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Federal Republic of Germany: Alternative service is available to recognized conscientious objectors. For details see paragraph 39 of the present report.
    • Finland: Non-military service consists of work for the public good. Alternative work service is performed mainly in the field of social welfare or health service, education or culture or in tasks connected with the protection of the environment or rescue work. In addition to public and local sectors, the service may be performed in certain other institutions, including the church and certain non-profit-making civil societies. There are over 500 institutions which organize alternative work service in various parts of Finland. (For further details see E/CN.4/1993/68: Finland).
    • France: Alternative service is recognized and administered by the Ministry of Social Affairs.
    • Greece: There is no alternative service. Legislation was drafted in 1988 providing a civilian service of twice the duration of military service, but this has not been enacted (WRI).
    • Guatemala: Alternative service is proposed in a draft law under consideration (NISBCO).
    • Guinea-Bissau: There is no alternative service; however, those supporting families may apply for deferral, which is usually granted (AI).
    • Honduras: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • Hungary: Alternative service is recognized and administered by the Ministry of Labour (WRI).
    • Iran (Islamic Republic of): There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Israel: Alternative service is not available. However, individuals may be allowed by their commanding officers to perform military service in specific areas only, for example within Israel for those selective objectors opposed to serving in the occupied territories (AI).
    • Italy: Alternative service is recognized and can be performed in non-governmental organizations working in the social, health, cultural, environmental, peace and civil protection fields (WRI).
    • Kazakstan: There is no alternative service.
    • Kuwait: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Lao People's Democratic Republic: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Latvia: Alternative service is recognized and organized through the Ministry of Defence and may be performed in public health, social welfare, municipal economy or protection of environment (WRI).
    • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Lithuania: Article 12 of chapter II of the Law on Alternative (Labour) Service provides for alternative (labour) service to be carried out on sites and projects indicated by the Government. Citizens may perform alternative (labour) service on the conditions of agreements made by the Department of Defence. These agreements shall be concluded with the municipalities, enterprises, offices and organizations. The Temporary Act on Military Service provides that alternative (labour) service shall be carried out in State labour detachments and in humanitarian and public services. Citizens performing alternative (labour) service receive 85 per cent of their pay, but no less than the State-established minimum for subsistence (art. 27).
    • Mexico: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • Moldova: Twenty-four months' civilian service in the construction industry (WCC).
    • Morocco: There is no alternative service (WRI).
    • Mozambique: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Norway: The alternative service for COs is mainly served in the health and social welfare sectors, humanitarian organizations, research institutions, museums and forestry and other agricultural work. (For further details see E/CN.4/1993/68: Norway).
    • Paraguay: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • Peru: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • Poland: Alternative service is recognized and is administered by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in cooperation with local authorities. It can be performed in environmental protection, health care and public service (WRI).
    • Portugal: Alternative service is provided for by article 276 of the Constitution and the Law on Conscientious Objection of 22 March 1985. Such service should be performed in the social, humanitarian, health, aid or environment sectors (AI).
    • Republic of Korea: The Military Service Exemption Control Law was passed in 1989: The Enforcement Decree of 20 April 1990 for the Military Service Exemption Control Law lists fewer job specifications that can be included in the military duty-substitution programme. Under the decree, there are just three categories of professional personnel who can benefit from the exemption programme: research, technical and public medical staff. The programme requires the professionals concerned to work in their respective fields for at least five years after undergoing six weeks of basic military training, instead of the mandatory military service, which lasts nearly three years on average (AI).
    • Romania: A draft law on alternative service has been submitted to the legislature (WRI).
    • Russian Federation: In November 1994, the Duma passed at first reading a bill "On Alternative Civil Service", but the Duma rejected the bill at its second reading in May 1995. On 14 February 1996, only 83 out of 450 members of the Duma voted for a law on alternative service (European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, "Right to refuse to kill" March/April 1996, p. 3).
    • Singapore: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Slovakia: Alternative service is recognized and administered by the Ministry of Defence. It can be performed in State or municipal organizations or units of the Slovakian army (WRI).
    • Slovenia: Alternative service is recognized and can be performed in 12 types of institution, including fire brigades, hospitals and humanitarian organizations (WRI).
    • Somalia: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Spain: Alternative service is provided for by law. It consists of work in the public interest that is run by the Public Administration and non-profit-making charities (AI).
    • Sweden: Alternative service is supervised by the Board for Administration and Training of Conscientious Objectors, Ministry of Defence. It is available to all recognized conscientious objectors, and can be performed in a government office, in an association or institution (AI and WRI).
    • Switzerland: There is no alternative service, although unarmed military service is available to some who, for moral or ethical reasons, would face "a severe conflict of conscience" if required to use a weapon (AI).
    • Turkey: There is no provision for alternative service on conscientious grounds, although since 18 April 1987 all in military service may apply to do service in forestry, public institutions, etc. after completing three months' basic training. It is also possible to pay so that service lasts as little as two months, although this is very costly (AI).
    • Ukraine: The Ukrainian Alternative (Non-Military) Service Act, which defines the institutional and legal bases for such service, came into force on 1 January 1992. It provides that alternative service shall, as a rule, be performed in the area where the person lives and only in State enterprises. The conditions of employment of persons performing such service are governed by Ukrainian labour law; in other words, they enjoy all the rights on an equal footing of the enterprise's regular workforce. The Act stipulates that alternative service shall be performed in institutions in the fields of social welfare, health care or environmental protection, or in municipal or agricultural enterprises or organizations.
    • Venezuela: There is no alternative service (NISBCO).
    • Viet Nam: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Yemen: There is no alternative service (AI).
    • Yugoslavia: Conscientious objectors who object to military service on religious grounds may do unarmed service within the military (AI).

    7. Possible penalties for refusal to perform military services

    • Afghanistan: Until recently, conscientious objectors were tried and imprisoned. Now they are arrested and sent to the army (AI).
    • Albania: According to information received, the constant avoidance of military service is punished by deprivation of liberty for up to five years. The same act, when committed in wartime or in a state of emergency is punished by deprivation of liberty for not less than five years, or by death (AI).
    • Angola: Those charged with desertion are believed to be subject to one to two years' imprisonment (AI).
    • Argentina: Any person who refuses to perform alternative social service shall, provided he does not commit a more serious offence, be liable to two to four years' imprisonment and general disqualification for the duration of the sentence.
    • Austria: Up to two years' imprisonment for unauthorized absence from the army and refusal to obey military orders (AI).
    • Bolivia: No alternative service, and length of service is doubled to two years for those who attempt to refuse. Students may, however, request a deferral until they finish their studies, and exemption can be requested for physical disability. Those who have refused to perform military service cannot be elected as members of Parliament (AI).
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Assembly of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted an Amnesty Law which came into force on 26 December 1994 (Protocol No. 1722/94). The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina also enacted a similar law. They provide amnesty for those who evaded the draft or deserted "if they received a call-up between 20 June 1992 and the day this law takes effect" (WRI).
    • Brazil: A fine is imposed for not registering. In addition, any male over the age of 18 must show proof of registration to obtain a work card or other State-provided services or benefits (AI).
    • Bulgaria: Article 361 of the Bulgarian Penal Code of 1986 provides for up to three years' imprisonment for evasion of military service (WRI).
    • Cambodia: Imprisonment for from three months to one year during peacetime, or six months to seven years during wartime (AI).
    • Chile: Article 70 of Decree Law 2306 provides for 61 to 540 days' imprisonment or up to 4 years' military service for failure to sign on at the age of 18; article 73 provides for the same penalties for failure to respond when called up (AI).
    • China: Article 61 of the law on military service, promulgated on 31 May 1985 states that "those who avoid or refuse registration ... conscription ... [or] military training shall undergo education and, if this is unsuccessful, be forced by the local People's Government to carry out their military service duty". In wartime separate military regulations apply (AI).
    • Colombia: Unwillingness to perform compulsory military service may lead to the unwilling recruit being tried for disobedience and possibly being sentenced to a prison term of from one to three years. If an individual simply fails to or ignores his obligation to define his military status and lets time pass, he may be fined when he does define it, even if he is not recruited. For further details see paragraph 41 of the present report.
    • Croatia: Chapter 18 of the Basic Criminal Code, entitled "Offences against the Armed Forces of the Republic of Croatia", provides for the following penalties for draft evasion and desertion:
    • Failure to answer mobilization call-up: a maximum of 1 year's imprisonment in peacetime; 1 to 10 years in wartime (art. 166, para. 1);
    • Hiding inside the country to avoid mobilization: 3 months to 5 years in peacetime; 5 to 10 years in times of threat of war;
    • Leaving the country to avoid mobilizsation: 1 to 10 years in peacetime; 5 to 20 years during times of war or threat of war (WRI).
    • Cuba: Article 252 of the Penal Code provides for a fine or a prison sentence of from three months to one year, or both, for trying to evade obligations related to military service. If fraud is used in evading service, the penalty is a fine or from six months to two years' imprisonment. Article 253 provides for a fine or a prison sentence of from six months to two years' imprisonment, or both, for not reporting for military service. There are unconfirmed reports of Jehovah's Witnesses being imprisoned for refusing military service, but no individual names are known (AI).
    • Cyprus: Imprisonment of from four to six months for those refusing military service, and from several weeks to four months for those refusing reservist exercises. Upon release, conscientious objectors are called up again and can face further terms of imprisonment if they continue to refuse to comply (AI).
    • Denmark: According to article 6 of the Civil Service Act of 1987, refusal to perform alternative service can be punished with fines and up to one year's imprisonment (WRI).
    • Ecuador: A fine is imposed (AI).
    • Egypt: One year's imprisonment plus a fine (AI).
    • Federal Republic of Germany: Up to five years' imprisonment (AI).
    • Finland: A person who refuses to perform civilian service/neglects his duty as a person liable for non-military service, a violation of civilian service, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period which is equivalent to half of the length of his remaining service time. Imprisonment for violation of civilian service duties is thus now markedly shorter than it was under the previous legislation with unconditional prison sentences of about 11 to 12 months. According to the revised legislation, a person serving his prison sentence may also, on appeal, be paroled to perform his civilian service. If a person in complementary service fails to obey call-up orders, a fine is imposed.
    • France: Imprisonment for between 2 and 12 months; up to 3 years for desertion.
    • Greece: As Greece has been in a state of general mobilization since 1976, resisters are tried by military courts. In theory, they can be sentenced to life imprisonment; in reality they are normally sentenced to four or four and a half years in prison (WRI).
    • Guatemala: Those who refuse to do military service may be imprisoned (AI).
    • Guinea-Bissau: Possible imprisonment (AI).
    • Hungary: Under article 366 of the Criminal Code, those who refuse military service may be sentenced to up to 5 years' imprisonment (6 to 15 years in wartime) (AI).
    • Iran (Islamic Republic of): Longer than normal period of military service; possible suspended prison sentence (AI).
    • Israel: "Failure to fulfil" a duty imposed by the conscription law may lead to up to 2 years' imprisonment; attempting to evade military service may lead to up to 5 years' imprisonment; and refusal to perform reserve duty may lead to sentences of up to 56 days' imprisonment, renewable if the objector repeatedly refuses (AI).
    • Italy: Imprisonment for between six months and two years (AI).
    • Jordan: For those who desert while actually performing military service, the penalty is life imprisonment (AI).
    • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Three years' imprisonment and deprivation of civil rights for 10 years (AI).
    • Lithuania: Article 79 of the Penal Code stipulates that evasion of the regular draft or alternative (labour) service may be punishable by imprisonment for up to two years. If a conscript deliberately injures himself, simulates illness, forges documents or avoids performing his duty in any other way, he may be committed for from one to five years' imprisonment. In accordance with article 80, evasion of the mobilization draft for national defence service may be punishable to imprisonment for from two to five years.
    • Mexico: Current Mexican legislation does not establish penalties for conscientious objectors, since conscientious objection does not constitute an offence.
    • Morocco: Desertion is punishable with jail terms of from 6 months to 3 years in peacetime and from 5 to 20 years in wartime (WRI).
    • Mozambique: Possible imprisonment (AI).
    • Norway: Conscripts not recognized as conscientious objectors who refuse call-up orders may be sentenced to three months' imprisonment under paragraph 35 of the Military Penal Law for Unauthorized Absence from the Military Service and may be subject to further call-up and possible further sentence after release (AI).
    • Peru: Possible prison sentence (AI).
    • Poland: Article 305 of the Penal Code provides for a sentence of from 6 months to 5 years' imprisonment for refusing "to perform military duty or to fulfil a duty resulting from such service"; the sentence is 3 to 10 years during wartime (AI).
    • Portugal: Possible imprisonment of up to one year. In practice sentences range between four and eight months' imprisonment (AI).
    • Republic of Korea: Those charged with "desertion of military service" under article 30 of the Military Penal Code may be subject to from 3 to 10 years' imprisonment in peacetime. There are reports of Jehovah's Witnesses being sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for refusing military service, but no details are known (AI).
    • Romania: According to article 353 of the Romanian Penal Code, ignoring call-up may be punished with imprisonment of from one to five years. Article 348 provides that draft-evasion may be punished with imprisonment of from six months to five years and article 323 states that desertion can be punished with one to seven years' imprisonment (WRI).
    • Singapore: Article 32 of the Enlistment Act states that the punishment for evading military service shall be a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years, a 5,000 dollar fine or both; acts deemed "desertion" face a maximum penalty of 10 years (AI).
    • Somalia: There are reports of the arrest and imprisonment of persons refusing military service; reports also indicate that some refugees not liable in law to conscription have been forced into the army. It is alleged that some resisters have been shot by the security forces (AI).
    • South Africa: There is a moratorium on prosecution for not reporting for military service. Therefore, all references to prosecutions, sentences and detention for falling to report for military service (except in cases of absence without leave and desertion) are no longer applicable.
    • Spain: For those who are recognized as conscientious objectors but who refuse to perform alternative service, the law provides for jail sentences of from two years, four months and a day to six years (WRI).
    • Sweden: It is customary practice to impose a conditional sentence and fines on a person refusing military service for the first time. In the case of repeated refusal, a prison sentence, as a rule for a term of four months, is generally imposed. However, the rules on conditional release mean that the person in question only needs to serve half the prison term. The Government usually prescribes, by virtue of section 46, subsection 1, of the Act on Compulsory Military Service, that a conscript who has received such a sentence shall not be called up for military service until further notice.
    • Switzerland: Up to three years' imprisonment, although in practice sentences rarely exceed one year. In cases where the objector is considered to have acted as a result of "a severe conflict of conscience" because of religious or moral beliefs, a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment may be imposed. Repeated refusal to perform military service may in theory result in successively higher prison sentences (AI).
    • Turkey: Failure to report for examination is punishable by a sentence of from six months' to one year's imprisonment. The normal sentence for refusal to perform military service is one year, but this may be increased on subsequent convictions for the same offence (AI).
    • Yemen: Failure to report for service (up to age 30) is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. Evasion by means of desertion or fraud is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment or a fine of 10,000 to 30,000 riyals.
    • Yugoslavia: The Federal Criminal Code provides the following possible penalties for draft evasion (art. 214), desertion (art. 217) and draft evasion/desertion in times of war (art. 266):
      (a) Failure to answer recruitment call-up: a maximum of 1 year's imprisonment in peacetime; 1 to 10 years in wartime;
      (b) Hiding inside the country with the intent to evade recruitment: 3 months to 5 years in peacetime; 5 to 20 years in wartime (earlier, capital punishment);
      (c) Going or staying abroad with the intent to evade recruitment: 1 to 10 years in peacetime; 5 to 20 years in wartime (earlier, capital punishment);
      (d) Inciting a conscript to commit one of these offences: Inciting to commit (a): a maximum of 3 years; inciting to commit (b) or (c): 1 to 15 years. In wartime more severe punishments;
      (e) Desertion and not returning within 30 days: 6 months to 5 years in peacetime; 5 to 20 years in wartime (earlier, capital punishment);
      (f) Desertion and leaving the country: a minimum of one year in peacetime; 5 to 20 years in wartime (earlier, capital punishment) (WRI).

    8. Dissemination of information on the possibility of obtaining conscientious objector status

    • Austria: Conscripts are informed about the possibility of submitting a civilian service statement. Further, a special information office for civilian service matters has been installed at the Federal Ministry of the Interior and several private organizations can also provide information about the civilian service.
    • Colombia: Since conscientious objection is not allowed, the Government does not disseminate information on the subject. Nevertheless, the Office of the Ombudsman pleads cases of conscientious objection and, if necessary, provides information and advice to those who request it; it has also encouraged information meetings and debates on the matter.
    • France: Information is disseminated as of the age of 17, at the same time and in the same conditions, as that which is disseminated to all young people, on the possibilities available to them in respect of the fulfilment of their obligations of national service. [back to the contents]

    Annex II

    LISTING OF COUNTRIES OR TERRITORIES ACCORDING TO THEIR SITUATION WITH REGARD TO CONSCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

    1. In this annex, countries or territories about which relevant information (as reflected in annex I above) is available have been listed according to their situation with regard to conscription and alternative service.

    2. List 1 shows countries or territories in which there is no conscription. It should be noted that, according to the information collected, in some of these countries or territories it is possible for conscientious objectors to perform alternative service in place of military service, or would be possible if compulsory military service were introduced or reintroduced (Australia, Malta, Papua New Guinea, United States of America and Zimbabwe).

    3. List 2 shows countries in which selective conscription exists in law but military service is voluntary in principle.

    4. List 3 shows countries in which conscription exists but is not enforced.

    5. List 4 shows countries in which conscription is enforced and conscientious objection legally recognized, and in which objectors may perform civilian and/or unarmed military service.

    6. List 5 shows countries in which conscientious objectors may perform unarmed (non-combatant) service within the military forces. This list is divided into two categories: (a) countries where the possibility of performing such unarmed service is legally and officially recognized; (b) those where such a possibility exists only on an ad hoc or unofficial basis.

    7. Finally, list 6 shows countries is which conscription exists and no alternative service is available to conscientious objectors.

    1. Countries or territories in which there is no conscription

    • Antigua and Barbuda
    • Australia
    • Bahamas
    • Bahrain
    • Bangladesh
    • Barbados
    • Belgium
    • Belize
    • Botswana
    • Brunei Darussalam
    • Burkina Faso
    • Burundi
    • Cameroon
    • Canada
    • Costa Rica
    • Djibouti
    • Fiji
    • Gabon
    • Gambia
    • Ghana
    • Grenada
    • Haiti
    • Hong Kong
    • Iceland
    • India
    • Ireland
    • Jamaica
    • Japan
    • Jordan
    • Kenya
    • Kyrgyzstan
    • Lesotho
    • Luxembourg
    • Malawi
    • Malaysia
    • Maldives
    • Malta
    • Mauritania
    • Mauritius
    • Monaco
    • Myanmar
    • Nepal
    • Netherlands
    • New Zealand
    • Nicaragua
    • Nigeria
    • Oman
    • Pakistan
    • Panama
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Qatar
    • Rwanda
    • San Marino
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Sierra Leone
    • South Africa
    • Sri Lanka
    • Suriname
    • Swaziland
    • Tonga
    • Trinidad and Tobago
    • Uganda
    • United Arab Emirates
    • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    • United States of America
    • Uruguay
    • Vanuatu
    • Zambia
    • Zimbabwe

    2. Countries in which selective conscription exists but military service is voluntary in principle

    • Argentina
    • Benin
    • Bhutan
    • Central African Republic
    • Chad
    • China
    • Honduras
    • Indonesia
    • Côte d'Ivoire
    • Mali
    • Niger
    • Senegal
    • Togo

    3. Countries in which conscription exists but is not enforced

    • El Salvador
    • Namibia

    4. Countries in which provision is made for civilian and/or unarmed military service

    • Angola
    • Austria
    • Belarus
    • Brazil
    • Bulgaria
    • Cape Verde
    • Cyprus
    • Czech Republic
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Federal Republic of Germany
    • Finland
    • France
    • Hungary
    • Italy
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Ukraine

    5. Countries in which provision is made for non-combatant service in the armed forces

    (a) On a legal basis

    • Croatia
    • Yugoslavia

    (b) On an ad hoc basis

    • Bosnia and Herzegovina
    • Russian Federation
    • Switzerland

    6. Countries in which there is conscription without alternative service

    • Afghanistan
    • Albania
    • Algeria
    • Bolivia
    • Cambodia
    • Chile
    • China
    • Colombia
    • Cuba
    • Democratic People's Republic of Korea
    • Dominican Republic
    • Ecuador
    • Egypt
    • Equatorial Guinea
    • Ethiopia
    • Greece
    • Guatemala
    • Guinea-Bissau
    • Honduras
    • Georgia
    • Guinea
    • Iran (Islamic Republic of)
    • Iraq
    • Israel
    • Kazakstan
    • Lao People's Democratic Republic
    • Lebanon
    • Liberia
    • Libyan Arab Jamahirya
    • Madagascar
    • Mexico
    • Mongolia
    • Morocco
    • Mozambique
    • Paraguay
    • Peru
    • Philippines
    • Republic of Korea
    • Romania (a draft law on alternative service has been submitted)
    • Singapore
    • Somalia
    • Sudan
    • Thailand
    • Tunisia
    • Turkey
    • Venezuela
    • Viet Nam
    • Yemen

    Annex III

    INFORMATION ON THE QUESTION OF ASYLUM

    1. The Secretary-General has not received any information relating to the question of asylum.

    Note

    1. The acronyms appearing in section B relate to the sources of information listed in paragraph 3. Where no acronyms are used, the information was provided by the Government concerned. [back to the text]


    © Copyright 1997
    Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
    Geneva, Switzerland

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit