A/HRC/35/4 62. At the same time, challenges remain, as some States continue not to recognize or fully implement the right to conscientious objection to military service in practice. Cases of punishment and repeated trial of unrecognized conscientious objectors are sources of concern, as is their stigmatization as holders of a criminal record and public disclosure of their personal information. Furthermore, there remain undue restrictions on freedom of expression for those who support conscientious objectors or who support the right of conscientious objection. Moreover, in some States that have recognized conscientious objection, the alternative service arrangements are not accessible to all conscientious objectors and are punitive or discriminatory in nature or duration by comparison with military service. 63. All persons affected by military service should have access to information about the right to conscientious objection and the means of acquiring objector status. Those who support conscientious objectors or who support the right of conscientious objection to military service should fully enjoy their freedom of expression. States should ensure that the right to object applies both to pacifists and to selective objectors who believe that the use of force is justified in some circumstances but not in others. Conscripts and volunteers should be able to object before the commencement of military service as well as at any stage during and after military service. 64. Alternative service arrangements should be accessible to all conscientious objectors without discrimination as to the nature of their religious or non-religious beliefs. States that do not accept claims of conscientious objection as valid without any inquiry process should establish independent and impartial decision-making bodies to determine whether a conscientious objection to military service is genuinely held in a specific case. After any decision on conscientious objector status, there should always be a right to appeal to an independent and civilian judicial body. States should ensure that alternative service is compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, of a non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive character. Any longer duration in comparison to military service is permissible only if the additional time for alternative service is based on reasonable and objective criteria. 65. States must ensure that no one is detained arbitrarily, particularly in indiscriminate round-ups with the aim of identifying young persons who have failed to resolve their military status. States should release individuals who are imprisoned or detained solely on the basis of their conscientious objection to military service. Conscientious objectors should not be repeatedly punished for not having obeyed a renewed order to serve in the military. Personal information of conscientious objectors must not be disclosed publicly by the State and their criminal records should be expunged. States must neither discriminate against conscientious objectors in relation to their civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights nor stigmatize them as “traitors”. Refugee status should be granted to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin owing to their refusal to perform military service when there is no provision, or no adequate provision, for conscientious objection to military service. 16