A/HRC/41/23 view, demonstrated a process that was not in good faith. 57 For example, lines of questioning included whether an applicant had worked as a waiter in a restaurant serving meat. A positive answer to such a question led to a determination that a pacifist belief could not be strongly held if the person was willing to serve meat. Similar questioning has been reported with regard to wearing leather. Other lines of questioning included whether the applicant would be willing to provide assistance to a wounded soldier, with a positive answer being interpreted as a willingness to support military operations. (iii) Timeliness of decision-making and status determination process 49. The process for the consideration of any claim of conscientious objection should be timely so that applicants are not left waiting for an unreasonable length of time for a decision. In general, the preferred practice is to complete the consideration of any claim of conscientious objection, including appeals, before conscripts are enrolled in the armed forces. For this to be possible, either the time limit for claims is such that the claim may be considered before actual call-up, or a provision has to be made to suspend call-up until the completion of the claim. 58 This should, however, be without prejudice to the right to develop conscientious objection at any time, whether before, during or after military service. 50. In Finland, section 13 of the Non-Military Service Act (2007) requires applications to be processed without delay. A conscript who applies for non-military service will be discharged immediately.59 In the Russian Federation, applications for permission to perform alternative civilian service are examined within a month of the deadline for its submission. This time limit may be extended by a month if the commission requests additional documents. A judicial appeal may be filed against a refusal of the call-up commission to permit alternative civilian service. In such cases, implementation of the decision is stayed until the court makes a final decision (Alternative Civilian Service Act, sect. 15). 51. A number of States (Norway and Slovenia, for example) explicitly allow for more rapid processing of applications received from those who are already serving in the armed forces. In Norway, all duties involving the bearing of arms are suspended upon application from a serving conscript for recognition as a conscientious objector pending the decision on the application, which must be made within four weeks. 60 (iv) Appeal (right of access to justice) 52. In line with the right of access to justice, applicants must have access to appeal if their application is rejected. After any decision on conscientious objector status, applicants should have the right to appeal to an independent and civilian judicial body (A/HRC/35/4, para. 64).61 53. In the Russian Federation, a judicial appeal may be filed against a refusal of the callup commission to permit alternative civilian service. In such cases, implementation of the decision is stayed until the court has made a final decision (Alternative Civilian Service Act, sect. 15).62 In Germany, any decision made by the Federal Office of Family Affairs and Civil Society Functions may be challenged in court.63 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 12 Submission by the Quaker based on information provided by the non-governmental organization New Profile. OHCHR, Conscientious Objection to Military Service, p. 52. Submission by the Quaker. OHCHR, Conscientious Objection to Military Service, p. 53. See also CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 23. Submission of the Russian Federation. Submission of the Quaker.