## Facts

- Vahan Bayatyan, an Armenian national and Jehovah’s Witness, became eligible for compulsory military service in 2001.
- He refused to perform military service on conscientious religious grounds but stated he was willing to perform alternative civilian service.
- Armenian authorities informed him that, because no alternative-service law existed, he was required to serve in the army.
- Armenia had recently joined the Council of Europe and undertaken to introduce an alternative civilian service within three years and to pardon imprisoned conscientious objectors.
- Bayatyan was prosecuted for draft evasion, convicted in 2003, and sentenced to imprisonment.
- He applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that his conviction and imprisonment violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) protects conscientious objection to compulsory military service.
2. Whether convicting and imprisoning a conscientious objector, where no alternative civilian service was available, was a justified interference under Article 9 § 2.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held that conscientious objection to military service can fall within Article 9 when refusal reflects a serious and insurmountable conflict between military service and sincerely held religious (or comparably serious nonreligious) convictions.
- The applicant’s conviction and imprisonment constituted an interference with Article 9 rights.
- The interference was not “necessary in a democratic society” because Armenia provided no genuine alternative civilian service at the time and had already committed internationally to introduce such a scheme.
- The Court found a violation of Article 9.

## Legal Principles

- Article 9 covers acts and refusals that manifest religion or belief, including conscientious objection where the beliefs reach a threshold of cogency, seriousness, consistency, and importance.
- The exception for “service of a military character” under Article 4 does not bar examination of conscientious objection claims under Article 9.
- Criminal punishment of a conscientious objector is disproportionate where the State fails to provide a workable alternative civilian service capable of accommodating conscience-based refusals while protecting legitimate public interests.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber recognized conscientious objection as potentially protected by Article 9 and held that imprisoning an objector who sought alternative civilian service, in a system offering none, violated the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.


Bayatyan v. Armenia, App. No. 23459/03 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2011)