Brinkhof v. Netherlands
From DADEL
Case Summary
Brinkhof v. Netherlands
Human Rights Committee
Communication No 402/1990
Netherlands. 30/07/93.
CCPR/C/48/D/402/1990.
The author of the communication is Henricus A. G. M. Brinkhof, a citizen of the Netherlands who claims a violation by the Government of the Netherlands of articles 6, 7, 8, 14, 18 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Covenant”).
Contents |
Facts
The author is a conscientious objector to military service. He was arrested and brought to the military barracks when he did not report for duties. At the barracks, he refused to obey orders to accept a military uniform and equipment on account of his pacifist convictions. He also refused to perform the substitute public service owing to his pacifist convictions. The Arnhem Military Court found him guilty of violating articles 23 and 114 of the Military Penal and article 27 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and dismissal from military service.
Both the author and the Public Prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Military Court. The author alleged, inter alia, a violation of article 26 of the Covenant on the ground that while conscientious objectors may be prosecuted under the Military Penal Code, Jehovah's Witnesses may not. The Supreme Military Court dismissed his appeal, holding that Jehovah's Witnesses, unlike conscientious objectors, are not required to do military service, and thus cannot commit offences under the Military Penal Code. The Supreme Military Court found the author guilty of violating articles 23 and 114 of the Military Penal Code and sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment and dismissal from military service. On 17 May 1988, the Supreme Court rejected the author's appeal.
Admissibility
The complaint was found to be admissible
Merits
The Committee found that the exemption of only one group of conscientious objectors and the inapplicability of exemption for all others cannot be considered reasonable. It emphasizes that, where a State party recognizes conscientious objection to military service, no differentiation should be made among conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs. However, in the case of the author, the Committee held that the author had not shown that his convictions as a pacifist was incompatible with the system of substitute public service. He had also not shown that the privileged treatment accorded to Jehovah's Witnesses adversely affected his rights as a conscientious objector against military service.
Decision
The Committee found that Mr. Brinkhof was not a victim of a violation of article 26 of the Covenant. However, the Committee was of the opinion that the State party should give equal treatment to all persons holding equally strong objections to military and substitute service, and it recommended that the State party review its legislation so as to remove any discrimination in this respect.