Bayatyan v. Armenia
European Court of Human Rights
App. No. 23459/03 (2011)
- Written by Matthew Celestin, JD
Facts
Vahan Bayatyan (plaintiff) was drafted into the Armenian army at age 17. As a Jehovah’s Witness, Bayatyan opposed war and therefore sought to avoid military service as a conscientious objector and instead fulfill his duty via alternative civilian service. However, the Armenian authorities told Bayatyan that no alternative service existed under Armenian law and that Bayatyan was required to report for service. Bayatyan refused and was subsequently arrested and sentenced to prison for his refusal. Armenia was one of the few nations that were parties (the party nations) to the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention) that did not recognize and provide alternative service for conscientious objectors. Bayatyan eventually filed an application in the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber, arguing that the Armenian government (defendant) had violated Article 9 of the convention, which provides, in part, that everyone has the right to freely exercise and manifest their religion. The Armenian government argued that, according to established precedent, Article 9 was qualified by Article 4, which dealt with compulsory military service, and therefore did not require party nations to recognize conscientious objectors.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Costa, C.J.)
Dissent (Gyulumyan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.