WPC ((bDJ,~B\^"h@53vamuY%ĩ-C6n>@1?Fױ$DiDF9ގ? c PWNrj~J[j'74spkNͩUet[x}+A=| 8 iJC@ X86Ix "c'ru,DuZ4_G*O@`TJx^O|{3Z=~AKX2H l'`Ǽ/vE*&'Zbk*pίsl/d"@axGJӚ7* Dj4I -ʖsf$e`z_(p^4.XZScV6 ѷf1qQ]X$ogA5$|+Խk&Ix™3qu'rX=trzb/x0jnSB.GЉTQTU> 0 0<G 0Y 0_ 0i; 06 0 : 0 0( D+ AM K 0[ # UN % M&(*NR^ Tw`4dx mz\  `&Times New Roman' M. J. G. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 267/1987 (24 March 1988), U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/O48), U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/O"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jS0.Strong 42Emphasis Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2M$ u!..      XXXXXXXX  ($'dxd A<< c#|x(u$..      XXXXXXXXHP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularXw) Kk):i+00U u!..      XXXXXXXX  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  M.J.G.v.TheNetherlands | CommunicationNo.267/1987 H 24March1988  d ADMISSIBILITY     Submittedby:M.J.G.(namedeleted)on19November1987 x  Allegedvictim:Theauthor D  Stateparty:TheNetherlands ` Declaredinadmissible:24March1988(thirtysecondsession) ,    DecisiononAdmissibility   Ӏ  1.Theauthorofthecommunication(initialletterdated19November1987)isM.J.G.,a @ citizenoftheNetherlands,bornon29December1963,residingin_Bilthoven_,the &v Netherlands.HeclaimstobethevictimofaviolationbytheGovernmentoftheNetherlands  \ ofarticle26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heisrepresented B bycounsel. ( 2.1.Theauthorstatesthatheisaconscientiousobjector.Hewassummonedtoappearbefore  amilitarycourtbecauseofhisrefusaltoobeyordersinthecourseofhismilitaryservice.In   theNetherlands,itispossibleforprivatecitizenstoobjecttoasummons.Iftheydoso,the p!  judgeisrequiredtodecideontheobjectionbeforethecourtproceedingsbegin.Duringthe V"! periodofcompulsorymilitaryservice,asoldier,whocomesundermilitaryjurisdiction,does <#" nothavethisright,becausemilitarypenalproceduresdonotenvisagethepossibilityofan "$r# appealagainstasummons.Thus,theauthorwasunabletoappealagainstthesummons %X $ beforeamilitarycourt. %>!% 2.2.Theauthorclaimsthatthisconstitutesaviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant,since ' #' heisnotbeingtreatedasacivilianwhocanavailhimselfofthepossibilitytoappealagainst (#( asummonsbeforethestartofcourtproceedings. )$) 2.3.Withrespecttotherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theauthorstates R+&+ thatheappealed,on12November1986,totheAdministrative_Rechtspraak_ 8,', _Overheidsbeschikkingen_Ԁ(_AROB_),thehighestadministrativeorganintheNetherlands, -n(- arguing,   interalia, *   thatthesummonswasinviolationofarticle6oftheEuropean  ConventiononHumanRightsandthathewasentitled,undersections285and289ofthe  PenalCodeandunderinternationaltreaties,toobjecttomilitaryserviceagainsthiswill.By | decisionof31December1986,thePresidentofthe_Afdeling_Ԁ_Rechtspraak_Ԁ_Raad_ԀvanState b (_ARRS_),the_AROB_ԀLegalChamber,declaredtheappealinadmissibleonthegroundsthat H thelawgoverningtheprocedurebefore_AROB_Ԁdidnotprovideforanappealagainstorders . ~ or_judgemerits_ԀbasedonthePenalCodeortheCodeofpenalProcedure.Byletterof16  d January1987,theauthorintroducedanotherrecoursewiththesameLegalChamberof  J _AROB_Ԁ(whichispossibleunderNetherlandslaw),claimingthathecouldnotbeconsidered  0 an"accused"personwithinthemeaningofthePenalCode,butadefendantwithinthe    meaningoftheCivilCode.Thatwouldmakeanappealpossible.On11June1987,theLegal    Chamberof_AROB_Ԁdismissedtheappeal.   3.1.Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRights ^  Committeemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsprovisionalrulesofprocedure,decide D  whetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant. *z  3.2.TheCommitteenotesthattheauthorclaimsthatheisavictimofdiscriminationonthe F groundsof"otherstatus"(Covenant,art.26   infine) 3  because,beingasoldierduringthe , periodofhismilitaryservice,hecouldnotappealagainstasummonslikeacivilian.The  Committeeconsiders,however,thatthescopeofapplicationofarticle26cannotbeextended  tocoversituationssuchastheoneencounteredbytheauthor.TheCommitteeobserves,as  itdidwithrespecttocommunicationNo.   245/1987 /  (R.T.Z.v.   theNetherlands),   thatthe t CovenantdoesnotprecludetheinstitutionofcompulsorymilitaryservicebyStatesparties, Z eventhoughthismeansthatsomerightsofindividualsmayberestrictedduringmilitary @ service,withintheexigenciesofsuchservice.TheCommitteenotes,inthisconnection,that &v theauthorhasnotclaimedthattheNetherlandsmilitarypenalproceduresarenotbeing  \ appliedequallytoallNetherlandscitizensservingintheNetherlandsarmedforces.It B thereforeconcludesthattheauthorhasnoclaimunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol. ( 4.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides:  (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissible; p!  (b)Thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheauthorand,forinformation,totheState <#" party.