The Ombudswoman of Croatia, Tena Šimonović Einwalter, participated in the roundtable discussion titled “Military Service in the 21st Century: Justification, Challenges, and Alternatives”, held on February 17, 2025, in the Croatian Parliament.

The roundtable was organized to encourage discussion on mandatory military service in the context of contemporary security challenges and societal needs, its impact on young people, citizens’ rights and obligations, and possible alternatives. The Ombudswoman was invited to provide a constitutional and legal analysis of the introduction of mandatory military service—whether it aligns with young people’s rights, potential risks of discrimination, and the legal framework for conscientious objection and alternative civilian service.

In her introductory remarks, the Ombudswoman noted that due to the changing security circumstances, this topic is being increasingly discussed across Europe, leading to shifts in comparison with the previous periods. She pointed out that discussions about the possible reintroduction of mandatory military service have been present in Croatian public discourse for some time. However, since there is no concrete legislative proposal yet, detailed discussions on specific provisions are currently not possible. Nevertheless, discussions on the legal framework and the obligations, as well as de lege ferenda considerations regarding what such legislation might look like, are warranted in light of the ongoing debate.

She emphasized that such an important issue must be discussed and decided upon at the highest levels and in appropriate forums. While not all aspects of military and defense preparedness are matters for broad public debate, the question of introducing mandatory military service must be presented and discussed publicly. This discussion must include aspects of human rights and equality, and young people—who are directly affected by this issue—must be actively involved.

The Ombudswoman highlighted that from a human rights perspective, military service raises concerns about potential limitations on the right to work and education. Regarding the proposed duration of the service, she noted that a shorter period is preferable in terms of limiting the impact on these rights. However, she also pointed out that a short service period might undermine the intended purpose of introducing mandatory military service. The legal framework should also consider possible deferrals and the reasons for granting them.

Concerning the risks of discrimination, she outlined several potential grounds, including age, disability, health status, gender, and particularly religion or belief. Regarding gender equality, she referred to Article 47, Paragraph 1 of the Croatian Constitution, which states that military service and the defense of Croatia are duties of all citizens capable of fulfilling them. At the same time, Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equal rights and freedoms regardless of gender. This raises the question of gender equality in the context of the mandatory military service for men. She expressed regret that the Constitutional Court has not yet ruled on the 2022 request to assess whether the Defense Act is discriminatory based on gender regarding the obligation of military service for men.

One of the most critical human rights aspects of mandatory military service is conscientious objection, which is explicitly recognized in the Croatian Constitution and must therefore be guaranteed. She explained that freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is a fundamental human right protected by the Croatian Constitution and various international treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 40 of the Croatian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and religion, while Article 47, Paragraph 2 explicitly allows

conscientious objection for individuals who, due to their religious or moral beliefs, are unwilling to perform military duties in the armed forces. These individuals must fulfill alternative duties as prescribed by law.

She noted that conscientious objection is not an absolute right, but any restrictions on it may raise concerns about discrimination based on religion or belief. Furthermore, she stressed that individuals who exercise their right to conscientious objection should not face penalties. For example, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that alternative civilian service should not exceed 1.5 times the duration of the standard military service. She emphasized that if mandatory military service is introduced, conscientious objection must be guaranteed, and the key issue will be determining the specific process—whether proof of conscientious objection will be required, what form it might take, and who would decide on such cases.

Since little is currently known about the proposed system of civilian service, including its infrastructure, rights, and restrictions, the Ombudswoman stated that, in principle, it would be beneficial for civilian service to focus on socially useful engagement, particularly in civil protection and preparedness for various potential disasters.

In addition to Ombudswoman Šimonović Einwalter, the roundtable organized by the Možemo! party parliamentary club also featured participation from Croatian Parliament members Ivana Kekin, Sandra Benčić, and Rada Borić; Marta Zorko from the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Zagreb and the Croatian Military Academy; military analyst Igor Tabak; Josip Miličević, Sandra Rozman Papak, and Marin Živković from the Croatian Youth Network; Hrvoje Marković from the Center for Economic Education; and Marina Mlakar from the Zagreb Youth Council and the Status M association.