A/HRC/41/23 release of 58 conscientious objectors.12 A draft bill for alternative service was released in December 2018. Civil society organizations and the National Human Rights Commission of Korea have commented on the draft bill and expressed concern at its lack of conformity with international human rights norms and standards and its punitive and discriminatory elements.13 9. With regard to conscientious objection in disputed territories not under the Government’s control, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief noted the absence of provisions in the northern part of Cyprus concerning conscientious objection, and recommended that the de facto authorities recognize the right to conscientious objection to military service and ensure that conscientious objectors had the option of performing alternative civilian service that was compatible with their reasons for conscientious objection, and did not have punitive effects (A/HRC/22/51/Add.1, paras. 68 and 87). In its submission for the analytical report, an organization observed that a “parliamentary committee” was investigating the possibility of instituting alternative service for conscientious objectors in the northern part of the island (A/HRC/35/4, para. 57).14 Since then, it has been reported that a draft amendment, which includes conscientious objection to military service and introduces alternative service, was submitted to the parliament on 7 January 2019, and that a parliamentary committee had begun to discuss the draft amendment on 13 February 2019.15 III. Approaches and challenges with regard to application procedures for obtaining the status of conscientious objector to military service in accordance with human rights standards A. Recognition of the status of conscientious objector to military service without an examination, inquiry or interview 10. In its resolution 24/17, the Human Rights Council welcomed the practice of some States accepting claims of conscientious objection as valid without any inquiry process. Such a position had already been supported in 1989 by the European Parliament, which adopted a resolution on conscientious objection and alternative service (Α3-15/89), in which it declared that “no court and no committee can examine a person’s conscience” and argued that “a declaration setting out the individual’s motives should suffice in order to obtain the status of conscientious objector”. In 1998, the Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 1998/77, also supported the same approach by welcoming the fact that some States accept claims of conscientious objection as valid without inquiry. This approach is based on the assumption that nobody knows better than the individual concerned whether military service can be reconciled with his or her religion or beliefs; on the fundamental human rights principle of individual self-determination; and on the fact that no court or committee can penetrate and examine someone’s conscience.16 11. In certain States, such as Austria, Norway and Switzerland, applications for status of conscientious objection to military service are accepted without examination or interview, regardless of the availability of alternative service. 12 13 14 15 16 4 Communication KOR 4/2018, sent jointly by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. See www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/EUR2500882019ENGLISH.PDF, www.amnesty.org/ download/Documents/ASA2503522019ENGLISH.pdf, www.peoplepower21.org/English/1595404 and https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20190322009000315. Submission by the International Fellowship of Reconciliation. See www.ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/attachments/2019-01-09-PressRelease_EBCO_Cyprus_Halil.pdf. Submission by the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection.