CCPR/C/32/D/267/1987

(b) That, since this d9cision may be reviewed und~r rule 92, paragraph 2, of the Committee's provisional ruleb of procedure upon receipt of a written request by or on b~half of the author~ containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no longe~ apply, the State party shall ~e requested, taking into account the spirit and purpose of rule 86 of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence against the authors before they have hsd a reasonable time. after completing the effective domestic remedies available to them, to request the Committee to review the pr3sent decision; (c) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the authors. K. CommunicatiQn NQ. 267/1987. M. J. G. y. the Netherlands (Decision adopted on 24 March 1988 at the thirty-second session) ~ubmitted by: M. J. G. [name deleted] Alleged yicttm: The author State party concerned: The Netherlands Date Qf communication: 19 November 1987 The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 Qf the InternatiQnal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Heeting on 24 March 1988, Adopts the fQl~Qwing: DecisiQn Qn admissibility 1. The author Qf the communication (initial letter dated 19 Nov~mber 1987) is M. J. G., a citizen of the Netl.erlands, born on 29 December 1963, residing in Bi1thoven, the Netherlands. He claims tQ be the victim of a violatiQn by the Government of the Netherlands of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. 2.1 The author states that he is a conscientious objector. He was summoned to appea~ before a military court because of his refusal to obey orders in the course of his military service. In the Netherlands, it is possible for private citizens to object to a summons. If they do so, the jUdge is required to decide on the objection before the court proceedings begin. During the period of compUlsory military service, a soldier. who comes under military jurisdiction, does not have this right, because military pe~"al procedures do not envisage the possibility of an appeal against a summons. Thus, the author was unable to appeal against the summons before a military court. 2.4 : The author claims that this constitutes a violation of article 26 of the Covenant, since he is not being treated as a civilian who can avail himself of the possibility to appeal against a summons before the start of court proceedings. -271- l.~ Nith re.peet to th~ requlrement of exhau.tion of dome.tic remediel, the author Itate. that he appealed, on 12 November 1986, ta the Adminiltratieve Rechtlpraak Overheid.belehikkingen (AROB), the hi9he.t admini.tcotive Qr9an in th~ Netherlands, ar9uin9, inter a1io, that the lummon. wa. in violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Humon Ri~htl and that he wa. entitled, under .ectionl 285 and 269 of the Penal Code and under international treati••, to object to military lervice a9ainlt hi. will. By deci.ion of 31 December 1986, the Pr••ident o~ the Afdeling .echtspraak aaad van State (ARRS), the AROB Le9al Chamber, declared the appeal inadmie.ible on the 9found. that the law 90'8rning the procedure bftfore AROB did not provide for an appeal again.t order. or judgement. ba.ed on the Penal Code o~ the Code of Penal Procedure. By letter of 16 January 1°'7, the author intro~uced e,nother recour.e with the .ame Le9al Chamber of ARvB (which 11 po••ible under Netherland. law), claimin9 that he could not be con.idered an "accu.ed" pel80n within the m.aning of the Penal Code, but a defendant within the meanh:.g of the Civil Code. That would make an appeal pOllible. On 11 June 1987, the Legal Chamber of AROB di.mil.ed th. appeal. 3.1 Before conliderin9 any claim. contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee mu.t, in accordance with rule 87 of it. provi.ional rule~ of procedure, decide whether or not it il a4mil8ible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 3.2 The Committee note. that the author claim. that he iB a victim of dhcrimination on the ground. of "other atatuB" (Covenant, art. 261n fine) becau.e, being a .0ldier during the period of hi. military .ervice, he could not apVeal again.t a .wnmon. lite a civilian. The CommiLtee con8id~1'" howevur, that the Icope of application of artiCle 26 cannot be extended to cover situations such

a. the one encounteTed by the buthor. The Committee oblerves, as it did with relpect to cOlNnuni(lation No. 245/1987 (1L.....Xa......i. v. ~), that the Covenant doe. not preclude the inltltution of compul.ory military service by States partiea, even though this mean. that lome liahte of individual. may be restricted during military .ervice, within the e.igencies of such .ervice. The Committee note., in thi. connection, that the authoE has not claimed that the Netherlands military penal procedure. are not being applied equally to all Netherlands citizens .erving in the Netherland. armed force.. It therefore concludes that ti.e author has no cl4im under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4. The Human Right. Committee therefore decide.1 (a) That the communication i8 inadmi••iblel (b) That thi. decision Ihall be communicat~~ to the author and, for information, to the State party. L. Communication No. 285/, iBB. L. G. Y. Jamaica (Deci,ion adopted on 26 July 1988~~ thirtY-third .e••ioo) Subm1tted hyl L. G. [name deleted] A~leQed yicttml The author State party cop~erol41 Jamaica Datl of ~ommUQicAtiQnl 20 January 1988 (d~te of initial lettel) -272-