A/HRC/35/4 45. In its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Turkmenistan, adopted in March 2017, the Human Rights Committee stated that it remained concerned about the continued failure to recognize the right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service and the repeated prosecution and imprisonment of Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to perform compulsory military service. The Committee recommended that Turkmenistan revise its legislation without undue delay with a view to clearly recognizing the right to conscientious objection to military service, provide for alternative service of a civilian nature outside the military sphere and not under military command for conscientious objectors, and halt all prosecutions of individuals who refuse to perform military service on grounds of conscience and release those who are currently serving prison sentences.63 46. In 2013, the Human Rights Committee expressed its concern to Ukraine that no measures appeared to have been taken to extend the right of conscientious objection against mandatory military service to persons who held non-religious beliefs grounded in conscience and beliefs grounded in all religions. In this context, the Committee stressed that alternative service arrangements should be accessible to all conscientious objectors without discrimination as to the nature of the beliefs (religious or non-religious beliefs grounded in conscience) justifying the objection, and should be neither punitive nor discriminatory in nature or duration by comparison with military service. 64 47. In his 2015 report on his mission to Viet Nam, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief noted that the right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service was not recognized at the domestic level and that there was no option of an alternative civilian service for individuals who objected, for conscientious reasons, to taking up arms. That contravened the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, which provided protection, consistent with article 18 (3) of the Covenant, against being forced to act contrary to genuinely held religious or moral belief. 65 48. While in the previous analytical report of 2013 it was noted that a trend to abolish or suspend compulsory military service had reduced considerably issues associated with compulsory and alternative service,66 the trend seems to have been reversed. Since 2014, conscription has reportedly been introduced for the first time in several States (Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) or reinstated (Georgia, Lithuania and Ukraine), and some Governments announced plans to reintroduce compulsory military service (Croatia and Sweden).67 B. Restrictions on the right of freedom of expression for those who publicly support conscientious objectors and conscientious objection to military service 49. During the oral dialogue with the State delegation on the initial report of Turkey, several members of the Human Rights Committee raised concerns about the fate of conscientious objectors and those freely expressing their support for conscientious objectors, arguing that the terms of article 318 of the Criminal Code on alienating the public from the institution of military service, which was apparently used to prosecute conscientious objectors, seemed incompatible with freedom of expression. 68 The delegation of Turkey responded that due consideration would be given to the Committee’s general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression.69 In its judgment of 15 November 2016, in the case of Savda v. Turkey (No. 2), application No. 2458/12, the 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 12 See CCPR/C/TKM/CO/2, paras. 40-41. See CCPR/C/UKR/CO/7, para. 19. See A/HRC/28/66/Add.2, para. 63. See A/HRC/23/22, para. 40. See contributions from the International Fellowship of Reconciliation and from War Resisters’ International. See CCPR/C/SR.2929, paras. 4, 6 and 27. Ibid., para. 36.