A/HRC/35/4 beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief, and its application is not limited to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. 11 Therefore, a State would be in violation of article 18 of the Covenant if it recognized the right to conscientious objection only for members of registered religious organizations whose teaching prohibits the use of arms.12 9. Some States that have not ratified the Covenant do not recognize the universal applicability of the right to conscientious objection to military service. For example, Singapore reiterated in its contribution to the present report that Human Rights Council resolution 20/2 went beyond what was prescribed in international law and applicable human rights instruments. It also indicated that article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized that the exercise of the rights and freedoms of an individual was subject to limitations to meet the requirements of public order and the general welfare of the society. Singapore further stated that national defence was a fundamental sovereign right under international law; where individual beliefs or actions ran counter to such a right, the right of a State to preserve and maintain national security must prevail. 13 Cuba, which has signed but not ratified the Covenant, considered in its contribution that there were no international human rights instruments that established a right to conscientious objection to military service, which should be understood as a notion based on the interpretations and general comments of the Human Rights Committee. 10. In a series of resolutions that were adopted without a vote, both the Human Rights Council and the Commission on Human Rights recognized the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as laid down in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.14 11. At the regional level, the Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union, in an opinion delivered in 2014, highlighted that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in its article 10 (2) identified and explicitly recognized the right to conscientious objection, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of that right. 15 In 2016, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of freedom of thought, conscience and religion in a case where the interview of a conscientious objector by the relevant special board had taken place in conditions that did not guarantee procedural efficiency and the equal representation required by domestic law. 16 Furthermore, the Ibero-American Convention on the Rights of Youth, in its article 12 (1), provides that young people have the right to conscientious objection to obligatory military service. 17 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 4 See general comment No. 22, para. 2. See CCPR/C/KGZ/CO/2, para. 23. See also A/HRC/23/G/6, annex; A/HRC/23/22, para. 15; E/CN.4/2006/51, para. 18; E/CN.4/2002/188, annex. See Council resolutions 24/17 and 20/2, and Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2004/35, 2002/45, 2000/34, 1998/77, 1995/83, 1993/84, 1991/65 and 1989/59. The first related Commission resolution, 1987/46, was adopted by a vote of 26 in favour, 2 against and 14 abstentions. See Court of Justice of the European Union, case C-472/13, Shepherd v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 11 November 2014, para. 52. European Court of Human Rights, Papavasilakis v. Greece, application No. 66899/14, judgement of 15 September 2016. For an overview of regional jurisprudence see A/HRC/23/22, paras. 16-24, and Özgür Heval Çınar, Conscientious Objection to Military Service in International Human Rights Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp. 95-156. See the regional overview by Ignacio Perelló in Convención Iberoamericana de Derechos de los Jóvenes: Balance y reflexiones — a cinco años de su entrada en vigor, pp. 56-60. Available at www.oij.org/file_upload/publicationsItems/document/20130114165345_51.pdf.