UN Human Rights Committee

Oh Tae-yang and ten others South Korean conscientious objectors will file a petition with the United Nations arguing that their convictions by the Korean government violated their freedom of conscience.

O Taeyang is a pacifist and buddhist. He declared his conscientious objection publicly on 17 December 2001. On 7 February 2002, a court decided that he would be not imprisoned while awaiting trial - this was the first time in any conscientious objection case in South Korea.

The United Nations' Human Rights Committee passed a landmark decision on the right to conscientious objection when deciding on the individual complaints of two Korean conscientious objectors at its 88th session on October/November 2006.

In its decision, the Human Rights Committee concluded that the Republic of Korea had violated the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as guaranteed by Article 18 of the ICCPR when denying the two applicants their right to conscientious objection.

UNITED NATIONS International covenant on civil and political rights

Distr.
RESTRICTED*
CCPR/C/88/D/1321-1322/2004
23 January 2007
Original: ENGLISH

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

Eighty-eighth session
16 October – 3 November 2006

Subject matter: Conscientious objection on the basis of genuinely-held religious beliefs to
enlistment in compulsory military service
Procedural issues: Joinder of communications
Substantive issues: Freedom to manifest religion or belief – permissible limitations on
manifestation
Articles of the Optional Protocol: None
Articles of the Covenant: 18, paragraphs 1 and 3

Another country scrutinised by the Human Rights Committee in its 88th session was the Ukraine, where the right to conscientious objection is only recognised for religious reasons. The Ukrainian government explains in its report: "Since military service is compulsory in Ukraine, the question of replacing such service by alternative (civilian) service is regulated by the State.

The Human Rights Committee, considered the periodical report of the Republic of Korea during its 88th session this year. The official report of the government of Korea gives some insights into the situation of conscientious objectors in the country. According to the report, the "development of nuclear weapons by North Korea poses a serious threat to the existence and security of the Republic of Korea.

CCPR/C/KOR/CO/3
28 November 2006

(...)

17. The Committee is concerned that: (a) under the Military Service Act of 2003 the penalty for refusal of active military service is imprisonment for a maximum of three years and that there is no legislative limit on the number of times they may be recalled and subjected to fresh penalties; (b) those who have not satisfied military service requirements are excluded from employment in government or public organisations and that (c) convicted conscientious objectors bear the stigma of a criminal record (art.18).

CCPR/C/UKR/CO/6
28 November 2006

(...)

12. While the State party has announced plans to convert its armed forces to an all-volunteer basis, the right to conscientious objection against mandatory military service should be fully respected. Conscientious objection has been accepted only for religious reasons, and only for certain religions.

In October, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations examined the periodic report of Paraguay. According to the country's report, "article 37 of the 1992 Constitution, which provides for conscientious objection in general on ethical and religious grounds in the circumstances permitted by domestic or international law.

In August 2005 the Chilean parliament passed a new recruitment law, after almost five years of discussion. However, the parliament failed to include any regulation for the right to conscientious objection in this new law.

The new law, which will come into force in 2007, introduces several changes. According to the law, registration for military service will be automatical. In January, the Civil Registry will pass on the data of all men who completed their 18th year to the military.

CCPR/CO/84/YEM
9 August 2005

(...)

19. The Committee regrets that no response was provided by the delegation to the question whether Yemen law recognizes a right to conscientious objection to military service (art. 18).

The State party should ensure that persons liable for military service may claim the status of conscientious objector and perform alternative service that is not of a punitive character.

(...)

CCPR/CO/84/SYR
9 August 2005

(...)

11. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the delegation whereby Syria does not recognize the right to conscientious objection to military service, but that it permits some of those who do not wish to perform such service to pay a certain sum in order not to do so (art. 18).

The State party should respect the right to conscientious objection to military service and establish, if it so wishes, an alternative civil service of a non-punitive nature.

(...)

CCPR/CO/84/TJK
18 July 2005

(...)

20. The Committee is concerned that the State party does not recognize the right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service (art. 18).

The State party should take all necessary measures to recognize the right of conscientious objectors to be exempted from military service.

(...)