Case No. UKUT-00241-(IAC)

. [emphasis added] 45. Regulation 7 deals with those excluded from refugee status. It includes those who, by reference to Article 1F of the Refugee Convention, have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, or have committed a serious non-political crime or have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. 46. We are satisfied, having regard to Article 9(2) of the Qualification Directive, and its counterpart in Regulation 5(2) of the 2006 Regulations, that prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would associate a person with breaches of IHL or action contrary to the basic rules of human conduct, is distinct from prosecution or punishment which is disproportionate or discriminatory (Article 9(2)(b) and Regulation 5(2)(c)). It is therefore not necessary for the prosecution or punishment for refusing to perform military service which may associate a person with action contrary to the basic rules of human conduct to be either disproportionate or discriminatory. We note however that the definition of persecution in Article 9(1) of the Qualification Directive and its counterpart in Regulation 5(1) of the 2006 Regulations requires the act of persecution to be sufficiently serious so as to constitute a severe violation of a basic human right. The structure of both the Qualification Directive and the 2006 Regulations suggests that the definition in Article 9(1) and Regulation 5(1) conditions the examples given of acts of persecution in Article 9(2) and Regulation 5(2). In other words, any prosecution or punishment for refusing to perform military service must still reach a minimum threshold of severity. 47. The issue in the House of Lords decision in Sepet , handed down on 20 March 2003, was whether the Turkish applicants were entitled to asylum on the basis of their conscientious objection to military service. Charges relating to draft evasion were very likely to be levelled against both applicants and their fear that they would be liable to imprisonment for between 6 months and 3 years was well founded ([1], [3], [4], [5] & [8]). 48. At [8] Lord Bingham stated, There is compelling support for the view that refugee status should be accorded to one who has refused to undertake compulsory military service on the grounds that such service would or might require him to commit atrocities or gross human rights abuses or participate in a conflict condemned by the international community, or where refusal to serve would earn grossly excessive or disproportionate punishment… But the applicants cannot, on the facts as found, bring themselves within any of these categories…. The crucial question is whether the treatment which the applicants reasonably fear is to be regarded, for purposes of the Convention, as persecution for one or more of the Convention reasons. 49. As the military service in Turkey would not associate the applicants with acts offending the basic rules of human conduct, the House of Lords was not required to examine in any further detail the circumstances in which a person who refused to undertake military service which may involve such conduct would be recognised as a refugee. It is important to note that both applicants faced the deprivation of their liberty if they refused conscription, and that, at [9], Lord Bingham described persecution as a ‘strong word’. 50. We also note what was said by Laws LJ in the Court of Appeal decision in