P. Communication Ho. 394/1990. C.B.D. v. the Netherlands (decision of 22 July 1992, adopted at the forty-fifth session) Submitted by: C.B.D. (name deleted) (represented by counsel) Alleged victim; The author State party; The Netherlands Date of communication; 9 January 1990 (initial submission) The Human Bights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 22 July 1992, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1. The author of the communication (dated 9 January 1990) is C.B.D., a citizen of the Netherlands, residing in ftxnhem, the Netherlands, He claims to be the victim of a violation by the Netherlands of articles 6, 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author states that he was prosecuted for his refusal to perform alternative service pursuant to the Act on Conscientious Objection to Military Service (Wet Gewetensbezwaarden Militaire Dienst). On 22 March 1985, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment by the court of first instance. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 2 May 1986; this judgement was confirmed by the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) on 19 May 1987. 2.2 The author states that his application for calling the expert witness L.W. at the appeal hearing was dismissed by the Court, on the ground that the Court was sufficiently informed by having had access to the file, which included documents produced by L.Vt. The author submits that this refusal was detrimental to his defence, as, during the trial at first instance, the witness had only given evidence as an expert, not as someone who knew the author personally and was in a position to inform the Court about the author's personal circumstances. The author concedes that said witness was already heard by the court of first instance, but argues that he wanted to put additional questions to him on appeal. Complaint 3.1 The author alleges that the refusal of the Court of Appeal to hear an important defence witness violated his right to a fair trial as protected by article 14 of the Covenant. He further alleges that the Netherlands defence policy violates articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and that therefore the requirement to perform (alternative) military service is of an illegal character. -388-