UN Human Rights Committee

During its 99th session, the Human Rights Committee also examined the periodic report of Israel. Again, also the issue of conscientious objection came up. The Israeli delegation said that in the matter of conscientious objections, it did not have the statistics available at hand on the number of cases approved. The burden of proof was on the objector, but it was difficult to say what the burden of proof was because it was hard to determine what was in a person’s heart and mind and whether they were lying.

During its 99th session, the Human Rights Committee examined the periodic report of Estonia. The issue of conscientious objection only came up briefly. The issue had been raised by War Resisters' International in a report to the Human Rights Committee. Regarding the issue of alternative service in lieu of military service and conscientious objection, the Committee asked if the delegation could inform it of the criteria used to determine approval for alternative service because the information provided in the report suggested that very few applicants were approved for alternative service.

Human Rights Committee
Ninety-ninth session
Geneva, 12–30 July 2010

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant
Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee
Israel

CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3

Distr.: General
29 July 2010
Original: English/Spanish

(...)

Human Rights Committee
Ninety-ninth session
Geneva, 12-30 July 2010

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant
Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee
Estonia

CCPR/C/EST/CO/3

Distr.: General
28 July 2010

Original: English

(...)

Human Rights Committee
Ninety-eighth session
8 to 26 March 2010

Views

Communications Nos. 1593 to 1603/2007

Submitted by:
Messrs. Eu-min Jung, Tae-Yang Oh, Chang-Geun Yeom, Dong-hyuk Nah, Ho-Gun Yu, Chi-yun Lim, Choi Jin, Tae-hoon Lim, Sung-hwan Lim, Jae-sung Lim, and Dong-ju Goh.
(represented by counsel Jea-Chang Oh of Haemaru Law Offices)
The authors

The Republic of Korea

15 May 2007 (initial submissions)

Special Rapporteur’s rule 97 decision, transmitted to the State party on 5 October 2007
(not issued in document form)

23 March 2010

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT

Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee

RUSSIA

CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6
29 October 2009

(...)

In August 2009, Azerbaijan has again imprisoned a conscientious objector. On 10 August 2009, conscientious objector Mushfiq Mammedov was detained, and sentenced only one day later, on charges of evading military service (article 321.1). Mushfiq Mammedov is reportedly being held in the Kurdakhani isolation center and has not been given a lawyer. He was once detained in 2006 and given a six-month suspended prison term on the same charges.

Colombia does not recognise the right to conscientious objection. Conscientious
objectors live with the permanent risk of recruitment by the Armed
Forces of Colombia, in one of the frequent batidas,
checkpoints set up by the military on busy streets or places, to
check the papers of young people at recruitment age. In addition,
they face further violations of their human rights.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
Ninety-sixth session
13 – 31 July 2009

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT

Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee

AZERBAIJAN

CCPR/C/AZE/CO/3
3 August 2009

(...)

14. The Committee remains concerned that no legal provision regulates the status of conscientious objectors to military service (art. 18).

Submission to the 95th Session of the Human Rights Committee: March 2009 Summary

The
Second Periodic Report of the Republic of Moldova contains no mention
of arrangements for implementing the right of conscientious objection
to military service.

Submission to the 95th Session of the Human Rights Committee: March 2009 Summary

When the Human Rights Committee considered the Fifth Periodic Report of the Russian
Federation, in October 2003, it came to the conclusion: “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

Submission to the 95th Session of the Human Rights Committee:

Obligatory
military service in Croatia was suspended with effect from the
beginning of 2008. In the event of its reintroduction in time of war
or national emergency, the provisions of the 2003 Law on Civilian
Service would again apply.1
In many respects these provisions came close to the best
international standards.