A/51/542/Add.1 English Page 9 36. In 1988, a draft law proposal for unarmed or social service was submitted to the Parliament. The provisions of this draft were, however, adjudged by the Central Law Preparatory Committee to be directly in conflict with article 4, paragraph 6, and article 13, paragraph 4, of the Constitution. Thus that draft law proposal did not, finally, reach the voting stage. 37. In 1991, the Ministry of Defence decided to draw up a new draft law proposal for unarmed or social (civilian) service. For this reason, the Ministry requested the opinion of the Legal Council of the State on the question: "Is the adoption of the institution of social (civilian) service for those refusing to bear arms and to serve even unarmed service in the Armed Forces due to their religious beliefs or reasons of conscience in accordance with the Constitution?". The Legal Council met on 10 October 1991 and issued opinion No. 669/90 in which it was unanimous in stating that the Constitution, as regards the reasons for institution of unarmed or social duty, was definitive, and superseded customary law. This is because, on the one hand, the provision of article 13, paragraph 4, does not allow for religious objections and, on the other, article 4, paragraph 6, does not allow for objections of an ideological or moral character. It is thus clear that the quest for a constitutional justification for conscientious objectors in the provisions of article 4, paragraph 6, of the Constitution is fruitless. Not only does it pre-empt any other constitutional justification basis, but it also brings out very emphatically this important provision as an immovable constitutional obstacle to the acceptance of religious objections and the erosion of the character and content of the military obligation. Therefore, based on the above-mentioned facts and justification, the Legal Council of the State was unanimous in its opinion that the adoption by law of the social (civilian) service would be contrary to the Constitution. 38. Furthermore, according to the Ministry of Defence, special measures are applied in favour of conscientious objectors as regards both the serving of a sentence and the place of detention (see chap. II, sect. A, "The Jehovah’s Witnesses"). According to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Greek State, despite the provisions of the Constitution relating to defence, has modified its stand by adopting a law providing for unarmed alternative service with certain privileges favouring conscientious objectors. Nevertheless, the conscientious objectors - in this instance, the Jehovah’s Witnesses - have refused to wear uniforms, salute the flag or accept the period specified for performing alternative service. The Ministry of Defence claims that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, by asking to be exempted from national service, were asking to receive treatment which would discriminate against other Greek citizens. The authorities maintain that the Jehovah’s Witnesses must, as Greek citizens, respect the law in force and bear in mind the particular position of Greece, a small State that must protect its territorial integrity. According to the Ministry of Justice, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are being prosecuted not for their beliefs but for having violated the law. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that the authorities were ready to make concessions provided they had no impact on national issues. The impact the Greek authorities seem to have in mind is any impairment of the obligation to perform national service and of the unity of the country. /...