T. Communication Ho. 401/1990, J.P.K. v. the Netherlands (decision of 7 November 1991. adopted at the forty-third session) Submitted by: J.P.K, (name deleted) {represented by counsel) Alleged victim; The author State party; The Netherlands Date of communication; 11 April 1990 (date of initial letter) The Human Bights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 7 November 1991, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1. The author o£ the communication (initial submission dated 11 April 1990 and subsequent correspondence) is J.P.K., a citizen of the Netherlands, born on 28 August 1966, residing in Leiden, the Netherlands. He is a conscientious objector to both military service and substitute civilian service and claims to be the victim of a violation by the Government of the Netherlands of articles 6, 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Bights. He is represented by counsel. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author did not report for his military service on a specified day. He was arrested and brought to the military barracks, where he refused to obey orders to accept a military uniform and equipment on the grounds that he objected to military service and substitute public service as a consequence of his pacifist conviction. On 21 May 1987, he was court-martialled and found guilty of violating articles 23 and 114 of the Military Penal Code (Wetboek van Militair Strafrecht) by the Arnhem Military Court IArrondissementskriiasraad) and sentenced to six months' imprisonment a.nd dismissal from military service. 2.2 The Public Prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Military Court (Hoog Militair Gerechtshof) which, on 9 September 1987, found the author guilty of violating articles 23 and 114 of the Military Penal Code and sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment and dismissal from military service. On 17 May 1988, the Supreme Court fHoge Raad) rejected the author's appeal. Complaint 3.1 The author alleges that the proceedings before the courts suffered from various procedural defects, notably that the courts did not correctly apply international law and did not consider, among others, the following conventions and general principles: -405-