context, the author regards the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (HA.TO) strategies of "flexible response" and "forwarded 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, it is "common knowledge" that the flexible response doctrine targets civilian centres which are held hostage for the eventuality that a conventional attack cannot be contained with conventional weapons. Moreover, if the "flexible response doctrine" is meant to be a credible deterrent, it must imply that political and military leaders are prepared to use nuclear weapons in an armed conflict. The author states that recourse to nuclear weapons is a "completely integrated part" of the militaryoperational plans based on NATO strategy. 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, in view of the Court, concern 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 two thirds of the members of the Supreme Military Court were high-ranking members of the armed forces who, given their professional background, could not be expected to hand down an impartial verdict. In the author's understanding, those with "a chip on their shoulders should not partake (...) the trial of a political adversary". 3.6 The author terms the appointment of the civilian members of the Supreme Military Court "a farce", pointing out that the two "civilian" members of the Supreme Military Court who had been appointed in accordance with the rules of procedure were in fact a rear-admiral and a general during their professional careers who. upon retirement, became the "civilian" members of the Supreme Military Court. State party's observations and author's clarifications 4.1 The State party notes that a State's right to require its citizens to perform military service, or substitute service in the case of conscientious objectors whose grounds for objection are recognized by the State, is, as such, not contested. Reference is made to article 8, paragraph 3 (c) (ii), of the Covenant. 4.2 The Government takes the view that the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Court in the Netherlands is guaranteed by the following procedures and provisions! (a) The president and the member jurist of the Supreme Military Court are judges in the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) in The Hague, and remain president and member jurist as long as they are members of the Court of appealt -407-