(a) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (b) The European Convention on Human Bights and Fundamental Freedoms; (c) The Convention on the Prevention .and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; (d) The Hague Convention IV on the Laws and Customs of War on Land; (e) The 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of Bacteriological Weapons; (f) The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg; (g) The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, of 12 August 1949; (h) The principle that civilian populations may never be targeted during military operations; (i) The principle that a distinction between civilian populations and combatants and between civilian and military targets be observed at all times; (j) The principle of proportionality; (k) The principle that violence which is likely to cause unnecessary suffering is to be avoided. 3.2 The author's defence was based on the argument that/ by performing military service, he would become an accessory to the commission of crimes against peace and of genocide, as he would be forced to participate in the preparation for the use of nuclear weapons. In this context, the author regards the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) strategies of "flexible response" and "forward defence", as well as the military-operational plans based on them, which envisage resort to nuclear weapons in armed conflict, as a conspiracy to commit a crime against peace and/or the crime of genocide. 3.3 According to the author, the Netherlands army, integrated as it is in the HATO structures, is preparing a nuclear war, which should be considered illegal in the light of international law. 3.4 The Supreme Military Court rejected the author's line of defence. It held that the question of the author's participation in a conspiracy to commit genocide or a crime against peace did not arise, as the international rules and principles invoked by the author do not concern, in the view of the Court, the issue of the deployment of nuclear weapons and likewise the conspiracy does not occur, since the NATO doctrine does not automatically imply use without further consultations. 3.5 The author further alleges that the Supreme Military Court -was not impartial within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant or article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He explains that the majority of the members of the Supreme Military Court were high-ranking -412-