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.
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-
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.
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.
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.
January 1988 (d~te of initial lettel)