On this opportunity, two cases were accumulated to be decided in one sentence. The two independent complainants adduced to be conscientious objectors of the obligatory military service. For that matter, they explained that the religious dogmas of the creed they professed were incompatible with the use of strength implied in the military activity. In one of the two cases, the military authorities delayed to answer a request made by the petitioner, appointing him in multiple occasions without providing a definitive answer to his solicitation. In the second case, the plaintiff was recruited within the frame of an “army raid”, and enrolled in the military, despite having manifested that his religious beliefs were contrary to the fulfillment of the military service.

The Court analyzed the following topics: the constitutional duty of undertaking the obligatory military service; the objection of conscience as a fundamental right and as a causative of exoneration of the military service; the jurisprudential rules about the constitutional proscription of the raids intending the recruitment of young men; and finally the jurisprudential rules about the effectiveness of the fundamental right of petition. After deploying careful study, this Tribunal decided to grant both actions and to order the defendants to define the military situation of the complainants, acknowledging their condition as conscientious objectors.