Dear Friends,
here is the latest news on the case of Jussi Hermaja, a Finnish
conscientious objector who has been working with us in Gent.

POLITICAL ASYLUM REFUSED TO FINNISH TOTAL OBJECTOR

The Commissariat-General for Refugees has refused the application for
political asylum of the Finnish total objector as being apparently
unfounded. The main motivation is that Finnish law concerning civil
service is neither discriminative nor punitive. Jussi Hermaja, Forum
voor Vredesactie and For Mother Earth dispute this decision. This
decision will be appealed at the Raad van State (the highest
administrative court)

THE STORY TILL NOW

Jussi Hermaja refused both military and civil service. The first
because of conscientious objections, the second because the Finnish
civil service is unreasonably long and applied in a discriminative
manner, which comes down to a punishment of certain categories of
conscientious objectors. The civil service takes 13 months, more than
double the length of the military service (6 months). Above that Jehova
Witnesses are exempted from both military and civil service, which
amounts to a discrimination between categories of conscientious
objectors and to a punishment of those who refuse military service for
political reasons.
Jussi Hermaja was sentenced to 197 days imprisonment, which was upheld
by the Finnish Supreme Court on 2 October 2001. The same day Jussi left
Finland to ask for political asylum in Belgium. This request was
declared unfounded by the Foreigners Department, and this decision is
now upheld by the Commissariat-General for Refugees.

THE DECISION

The decision of the Commissariat-General declares first that the
Finnish laws concerning civil service are neither punitive nor
discriminatory and that the length of the civil service, despite the
difference with the military service, is not unreasonably long. The
Commissariat-General declares that a government can legitimately take
measures such as the defense of a country by conscription, which apply
only to certain categories of people. As well it states that these laws
apply to everyone opting for civil service, without aiming at a
specific population group.
Secondly the Commissariat-General states that Jussi is not prosecuted
in Finland because of his political conviction but because of
committing criminal deeds, in casu refusing service, and that the
Finnish law in force has been applied. The punishment is not considered
disproportional.
Also, it is stated that the asylum application itself entailed no
danger because Finland is a democratic state ruled by law. This means
Jussi would not receive extra punishment or persecution because of his
asylum application.

OUR OBJECTIONS

We dispute this motivation. The UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and
Criteria for Determining Refugee Status states: “A deserter or draft-
evader may be considered a refugee if it can be shown that he would
suffer disproportionately severe punishment for the military offence on
account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion.” By consequence someone can be
recognized as a refugee if he is treated in a disproportional manner
for his refusal to do military service because of his political
opinions.
The Finnish government treats those who refuse military service because
of political reasons in a different manner than a Jehova Witness. If
the Refugee Convention perhaps accepts that only a certain category of
people (eg men) are obliged to fulfil military service, it is
questionable that a different treatment of conscientious objectors is
still legitimate. Is it necessary for the defense of a country to treat
a Jehova Witness different from those who refuse military service
because of political reasons? The long civil service imposed in this
case because of someones political opinions should be considered as a
disproportionate treatment. The alternative civil service has a
punishing character and is discriminating.
The fact that this discrimination is codified in the law and by
consequence the Finnish government is ‘only’ applying the law, does not
change the fact that those people who refuse military service because
of political reasons receive a much harsher treatment.

The Council of Europe has recognised for a long time the problems with
the treatment of conscientious objection, and states that “Alternative
service shall not be of a punitive character. Its duration shall, in
comparison to that of military service, remain within reasonable
limits” (Recommendation nr R(87)8 of the Committee of ministers). This
was again confirmed on 23 May 2001 in the parliamentary recommendation
1518, which also explicitly recommended the incoporation of the right
to conscientious objection in the European Treaty of Human Rights.
Furthermore, Amnesty International considers the great difference in
length between military and civil service as punishing and therefore
adopts the Finnish total objectors as prisoners of conscience.
We do not understand why the Commissariat-General concludes so easily
that the length of the civil service can not be considered as
unreasonably long, without even investigating this further. This
procedure is anyway only to investigate the receivability of the asylum
application.
There is evidence that even the Finnish government admits to having a
problem. This can be concluded from the letter it sent to For Mother
Earth (enclosed). It seems that the Finnish government is keen to get
rid of its total objectors, since it has not asked Belgium for the
extradition of someone who is convicted to a prison sentence and has
exhausted all appeals.

For these reasons the decision will be appealed at the Raad van State.

---
Voor Moeder Aarde
Maria Hendrikaplein 5
9000 Gent
Belgium
tel: +32 9 242 87 52
email: david@...
http://www.motherearth.org