The case concerned conscientious objector Tomi Auti, who complained about discrimination due to the punitive length of substitute service in Finland. The Commission came to the conclusion that “For the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention, a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it "has no objective and reasonable justification”, that is, if it does not pursue a “legitimate aim”, or if there is no “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised”.”
The Commission is satisfied that the differential treatment in question pursued a “legitimate aim”.
Although the duration of substitute service is considerably longer than that of military service the Commission, taking into account the State's margin of appreciation, finds that the differential treatment in question does not amount to a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention.
Length/terms of service | Not recognised |