E/CN.4/1995/91 page 101 Although, when examining a conflict of conscience, no subtle distinctions may be drawn between ethical, religious or political reasons, weight should not be given indiscriminately to a decision dictated by a person’s conscience. Only behaviour resting on inner certitude with regard to fundamental ethical values can justify the application of article 81, paragraph 2 of the Military Penal Code. These fundamental ethical values are those with which society has become deeply imbued with the passage of time and which are conducive to the triumph of good over evil and justice over injustice in all circumstances. A decision resting on a rational appraisal reached by the application of criteria which distinguish what is false from what is true in the eyes of the person concerned does not typify the dilemma which makes military service incompatible with the demands of that person’s conscience. Behaviour resulting from adherence to humanitarian principles or a political ideology does not justify the granting of the exemption provided for by law, unless at the same time it is based on deeply held convictions and noble sentiments which are bound up with fundamental ethical values. Invoking a personal philosophy is not therefore sufficient for the conditions required for the application of article 81 of the Military Penal Code to be met. Only high moral precepts, which must be reasonably shown to be of a compelling nature for a person’s conscience, justify conscientious objection. Mr. Cadalbert, to whom the Special Rapporteur expressly refers in his request, was sentenced, on the basis of the above-mentioned principles, to three months’ imprisonment for refusal to serve, expelled from the army and ordered to pay the cost of proceedings amounting to SwF 510. As he did not avail himself of the legal remedies open to him, this judgement became final on 22 May 1992. The court considered that the reasons given by Mr. Cadalbert as grounds for refusing to serve (taking issue with the structure of the army which he described as ’inhuman’, belief that armies do not solve any problems, etc.) did not satisfy the requirements of case law (see the above-mentioned quotation) for valid entitlement to conscientious objection. Recently, on 17 May 1992, the people and the cantons accepted an amendment to article 18 of the Constitution which now embodies the principle of civilian service, as well as the rule that service is obligatory. It now rests with the legislature to enact legal provisions implementing this new principle and to stipulate admissible grounds for exemption from service in the army, the duration of civilian service and the terms and conditions covering it. At this stage of the legislative process, it is already possible to say that there will be no free choice between military and civilian service, as the former will remain the rule and the second will be permissible only on certain ethical grounds and in accordance with a procedure which has still to be defined. Nevertheless, once the legislation comes into force, conscientious objectors will no longer be liable to a penalty."