U. Communication Mo. 403/1990, T.W.M.B. v. the Netherlands (decision of 7 November 1991, adopted at the forty-third session) Submitted byt T.W.M.B. (name deleted) Alleged victim; The author State partyt The Ketherlands Date of communication; 11 April 1990 (date of initial letter) The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 7 Hovember 1991, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 11 April 1990 and subsequent correspondence) is T.W.M.B., a citizen of the Netherlands, born on 29 June 1965, residing in Hengelo, the Netherlands. He is a conscientious objector to both military service and substitute civilian service and claims to be the victim of a violation by the Government of 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 did not report for his military service on a specified day. He was arrested and brought to the military barracks, where he refused to obey orders to accept a military uniform and equipment on the ground that he objected to military service and substitute public service as a consequence of his pacifist convictions. On 2 February 1987, he was court-martialled and found guilty of violating articles 23 and 114 of the Military Penal Code (Wetboek van Militair Strafrecht) by the Arnhem Military Court (ArrondissementskrijgsraacQ and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and dismissal from military service. 2.2 Both the author and the Public Prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Military Court (Hoog Militair Gerechtshof) which, on 6 May 1987, found the author guilty of violating articles 23, 114 and 150 of the Military Penal Code and article 57 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment and dismissal from military service. On 9 February 1988, the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) rejected the author's appeal. Complaint 3.1 The author alleges that the proceedings before the courts suffered from various procedural defects, notably that the courts did not correctly apply international law and did not consider the following conventions and general principles: -411-