UN Human Rights Committee

CCPR/CO/80/COL
26 May 2004

(...)

17. The Committee notes with concern that the legislation of the State party does not allow conscientious objection to military service.

The State party should guarantee that conscientious objectors are able to opt for alternative service whose duration would not have punitive effects (arts. 18 and 26).

(...)

Source: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/419/12/PDF/G0441912.pdf?OpenElement

Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Lithuania. 04/05/2004.
CCPR/CO/80/LTU. (Concluding Observations/Comments)

(...)

17. The Committee reiterates the concern expressed in its concluding observations on the previous report about conditions of alternative service available to conscientious objectors to military service, in particular with respect to the eligibility criteria applied by the Special Commission and the duration of such service as compared with military service.

CCPR/CO/79/RUS
6 November 2003

(...)

17. While the Committee welcomes the introduction of the possibility for conscientious objectors to substitute civilian service for military service, it remains concerned that the Alternative Civilian Service Act, which will take effect on 1 January 2004, appears to be punitive in nature by prescribing civil service of a length 1.7 times that of normal military service. Furthermore, the law does not appear to guarantee that the tasks to be performed by conscientious objectors are compatible with their convictions.

CCPR/CO/79/LVA
06 November 2003

(...)

15. The Committee notes with satisfaction that in 2002, a new law on alternative service entered into force, which provides for the right to conscientious objection. However, the Committee remains concerned that, pending a change in the conscription law, the duration of alternative service is up to twice that of military service and appears to be discriminatory (Article 18).

The State party should ensure that the alternative service is not of a discriminatory duration.

(...)

Report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee for its consideration of the Fifth Periodic Report by the Russian Federation

War Resisters' International:

The Russian Federation: Human Rights and the Armed Forces

Report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee



July-September 2003

1 Executive Summary

2.

CCPR/CO/78/ISR
21 August 2003

(...)

24. While noting the Supreme Court's judgement of 30 December 2002 in the case of eight IDF reservists (judgement HC 7622/02), the Committee remains concerned about the law and criteria applied and generally adverse determinations in practice by military judicial officers in individual cases of conscientious objection (art. 18).

The State party should review the law, criteria and practice governing the determination of conscientious objection, in order to ensure compliance with article 18 of the Covenant.

(...)

CCPR/CO/77/LUX
15 April 2003

(...)

7. The Committee notes, on the one hand, that the State party grants financial assistance to the Christian and Jewish communities only and, on the other hand, that the criteria (such as membership of a religion recognized worldwide and officially in at least one European Union country) may give rise to problems as far as their compatibility with the provisions of articles 18, 26 and 27 of the Covenant is concerned.

CCPR/CO/77/EST
15 April 2003

(...)

15. The Committee is concerned that the duration of alternative service for conscientious objectors may be up to twice as long as the duration of regular military service.

The State party is under an obligation to ensure that conscientious objectors can opt for alternative service, the duration of which is without punitive effect (articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant).

(...)

This report focuses on the situation of conscientious objectors in Israel, especially in the last two years. The issue of conscientious objection is complex, with a variety of regulations for specific groups. However, it is generally characterised by the violation of the human right to conscientious objection.

CCPR/CO/75/VNM
26 July 2002

(...)

17. The Committee takes note of the fact that the law makes no provision for the status of conscientious objector to military service, which may legitimately be claimed under article 18 of the Covenant.

The State party should ensure that persons liable for military service may claim the status of conscientious objector and perform alternative service without discrimination.

(...)

CCPR/CO/74/GEO
19 April 2002

(...)

18. The Committee expresses its concern at the discrimination suffered by conscientious objectors owing to the fact that non-military alternative service lasts for 36 months compared with 18 months for military service; it regrets the lack of clear information on the rules currently governing conscientious objection to military service.

CCPR/CO/73/UKR
12 November 2001

(...)

20. The Committee notes with concern the information given by the State party that conscientious objection to military service is accepted only in regard to objections for religious reasons and only with regard to certain religions, which appear in an official list. The Committee is concerned that this limitation is incompatible with articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant.