A/HRC/35/4 B. Right of serving members of the armed forces, including conscripts and volunteers, to make claims of conscientious objection to military service 12. The Human Rights Council and, previously, the Commission on Human Rights, have repeatedly pointed out that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections, and affirmed the importance of the availability of information about the right to conscientious objection to military service, and the means of acquiring conscientious objector status, for all persons affected by military service. 18 In its resolution 24/17, the Council acknowledged that an increasing number of States recognized conscientious objection to military service not only for conscripts but also for those serving voluntarily, and encouraged States to allow applications for conscientious objection prior to, during and after military service, including reserve duties. 13. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief reiterated in observations on communications and mission reports that conscientious objection may develop over time, and even after a person has already participated in military training or activities. 19 Three special procedure mandate holders sent a joint urgent appeal concerning a conscientious objector who had left the army without authorization following her decision that she could no longer participate in the war in Iraq or any other conflict for moral reasons. 20 The Human Rights Committee had recommended that States parties ensure that the law clearly stipulates that individuals have the right to conscientious objection to military service, which they should be able to exercise before the commencement of military service and at any stage during military service.21 14. At the level of the European Union, the Advocate General at the Court of Justice stressed that the manner in which the conscientious objector was recruited was irrelevant, since the wording “refusal to perform military service” in Council Directive 2004/83/EC22 encompassed anyone in military service, both conscripts and enlisted recruits, and that all military personnel were covered, including logistical or support personnel. 23 The Court of Justice ruled in 2015 that it did not appear that the measures incurred by a soldier because of his refusal to perform military service, such as the imposition of a prison sentence or discharge from the army, might be considered, having regard to the legitimate exercise, by that State, of its right to maintain an armed force, so disproportionate or discriminatory as to amount to acts of persecution; however, it was for the national authorities to ascertain whether that was indeed the case.24 C. Selective conscientious objection 15. In its Guidelines on International Protection No. 10, issued in December 2013, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stressed that the right to conscientious objection also applied to partial or selective objectors. 25 Such objectors believe that the use of force is justified in some circumstances but not in others and that therefore it is necessary to object in those other cases, whereas pacifists object to all use of armed force or participation in all wars. The General Assembly implicitly recognized one type of selective objection in its resolution 33/165, in which it called upon Member States to grant asylum or safe transit to another State to persons compelled to leave 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Council resolution 24/17 and Commission resolutions 1998/77, 1995/83 and 1993/84. See E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1, para. 139; A/HRC/19/60/Add.1, para. 56; A/HRC/22/51/Add.1, para. 69. See A/HRC/23/51, p. 28. See CCPR/C/KAZ/CO/1, para. 23; CCPR/C/CHL/CO/5, para. 13; CCPR/C/SVK/CO/3, para. 15. Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted. See Shepherd v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, paras. 32 and 35. See case C-472/13, Shepherd v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, judgment of the Second Chamber of 26 February 2015, para. 57. See paras. 3 and 11 of the Guidelines. 5