A/HRC/35/4 their country of nationality solely because of a conscientious objection to assisting in the enforcement of apartheid through service in military or police forces. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief have also taken up cases of selective conscientious objectors.26 D. Decision-making process for applications for conscientious objector status 16. In their resolutions, the Human Rights Council and, previously, the Commission on Human Rights, have called upon States that do not accept claims of conscientious objection to military service as valid without inquiry to establish independent and impartial decisionmaking bodies with the task of determining whether a conscientious objection to military service is genuinely held in a specific case. 27 In those resolutions and in general comment No. 22 of the Human Rights Committee, it was stressed that there should be no differentiation among conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs. 17. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has also provided guidance on the required institutional and procedural safeguards for conscientious objectors. The decision concerning their status should, when possible, be made by an impartial tribunal set up for that purpose or by a regular civilian court, with the application of all the legal safeguards provided for in international human rights instruments. There should always be a right to appeal to an independent, civilian judicial body. The decision-making body should be entirely separate from the military authorities, and the conscientious objector should be granted a hearing, be entitled to legal representation and be able to call relevant witnesses.28 E. Prohibition of repeated trial or punishment of conscientious objectors 18. The Human Rights Council has stressed that repeated punishment of conscientious objectors for refusing a renewed order to serve in the military may amount to punishment for the same crime, in breach of the legal principle ne bis in idem.29 The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief also have held that repeated incarceration of conscientious objectors violated article 14 (7) of the Covenant.30 19. In its Views on five individual communications, adopted in 2015 and 2016, the Human Rights Committee found violations of freedom of thought, conscience and religion and of the double jeopardy principle, since the authors of the communications had been tried and punished twice under the same provision of the Turkmen Criminal Code on account of the fact that they had objected to, and refused to perform, compulsory military service.31 26 27 28 29 30 31 6 E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.1, p. 18; A/HRC/23/51, p. 28. Commission resolution 1998/77; Council resolution 24/17. See also Human Rights Committee general comment No. 22, para. 11. See E/CN.4/1992/52, para. 185; A/HRC/6/5, para. 22; A/HRC/19/60/Add.1, para. 56 and A/HRC/22/51/Add.1, para. 69. See also CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 23. Council resolution 24/17. See also Human Rights Committee general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 55; CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2, paras. 37-38. E/CN.4/2001/14/Add.1, pp. 54-55; E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.1, p. 22; A/HRC/10/8/Add.4, paras. 50 and 68; A/HRC/16/53/Add.1, para. 391. See Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, Nasyrlayev v. Turkmenistan, Aminov v. Turkmenistan, Matyakubov v. Turkmenistan and Nurjanov v. Turkmenistan.