In Britain, 16,000 people asked for conscientious objector status.

In the 26 other conscientious objector cases referred to, the applicants had either been denied that status for lack of proper documentation or had had it revoked under Act No. 2510.

A further reduction of conscientious objector service, beyond the latest reduction in July 2004, would not be possible in the near future, although conscientious objectors would benefit indirectly from the gradual reduction of normal military service.

It is necessary to consider whether Israel and the United States can rely on the persistent objector principle to claim that, at least as far as they are concerned, the applicability of LOAC IHL displaces that of HRsL.

While he claims to have deserted in 1994 on humanitarian grounds as a conscientious objector, consciously exposing himself to the risk of very severe punishment, his humanitarian concerns seem totally at odds with his violent criminal conduct on arrival in France and subsequently.

The Petromelidis case referred to involved a conscript who had claimed conscientious objector status in 1992 when it did not exist under the law and had thus been convicted of insubordination, a crime under the Penal Code, and given a four year suspended prison sentence.

His impression that conscientious objectors were in an unduly vulnerable position had been reinforced by a reported case of an individual who had been stripped of his status as a recognized conscientious objector for refusing to do 30 months of community service because of its punitive nature.

After the adoption of Act No. 2510 in 1997 he had refused to serve as a conscientious objector, citing the punitive length of service, and had again been convicted of insubordination, that time before a military court, and his case was currently under appeal in the Greek courts.