A/HRC/23/22 towards changing their conviction and opinion, under threat of penalty”,28 and that it is thus incompatible with article 18, paragraph 2, of the Covenant which prohibits “coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”. The repeated trial or punishment of unrecognized conscientious objectors to military service would also be a violation of article 14, paragraph 7 of the Covenant prohibiting repeated trial or punishment for an offence for which a person has been finally convicted or prohibited. The Human Rights Committee addressed the issue in its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial where it stated: “Repeated punishment of conscientious objectors for not having obeyed a renewed order to serve in the military may amount to punishment for the same crime if such subsequent refusal is based on the same constant resolve grounded in reasons of conscience” (para. 55). 33. In resolution 1998/77, the Commission on Human Rights emphasized that, “States should take the necessary measures to refrain from subjecting conscientious objectors … to repeated punishment for failure to perform military service, and recalls that no one shall be liable or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country”. F. Alternative service 34. The Human Rights Committee has frequently referred to the fact that States may, if they so desire, establish alternative service in place of compulsory military service. This is also recognized in article 8 of the Covenant which provides that “any national service required by law of conscientious objectors” shall not be included within the meaning of the terms “forced or compulsory labour”. But it should also be noted that there is no requirement under international law for States to establish such a system, and State can simply excuse conscientious objectors from military service with no further action required from such persons. 35. The Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1998/77 set out criteria for alternative service and indicated to States that “they provide for conscientious objectors various forms of alternative service which are compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, of a non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive character”. This recommendation can be understood to distinguish those conscientious objectors whose objection is to personally bearing arms, but who are not opposed to unarmed military service, from those whose objection is to any participation in the armed forces. For the first category of objectors whose objection is to personally bearing arms, non-combatant service in the military may be compatible with the reasons for their conscientious objection. However, for conscientious objectors whose objection is to any participation in the armed forces, alternative service should be of a civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive character.29 36. The Human Rights Committee has indicated that the term “punitive” includes the conditions of alternative service as well as its duration in relation to the length of military service. In its concluding observations following consideration of a State report in 2009, the Committee found that the conditions of alternative serve were “punitive in nature, including 28 29 10 Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, E/CN.4/2001/14 (Recommendation 2: detention of conscientious objectors), paras. 91–94; see also opinion No. 36/1999 (Turkey). Recommendation No. R (87) 8 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe also makes this distinction between two types of alternative service: unarmed military service and alternative service that is civilian, in the public interest and not of a punitive nature (paras. 9–10).