A/HRC/23/22 V. Conclusions 68. The present report shows that there have been significant legal developments in recognition of conscientious objection to military service at the international and regional levels since the last analytical report of OHCHR in 2006 and its updating report in 2008. It also shows that there are an increasing number of countries that recognize conscientious objection not only for conscripts, but also for those serving voluntarily. Problems remain, however, as some States continue not to recognize conscientious objection to military service, or do not recognize it for those serving voluntarily. 69. Reports of repeated trial or punishment, as well as of ill-treatment of unrecognized conscientious objectors, are sources of concern. Restrictions on freedom of expression for those who support conscientious objectors or who support the right of conscientious objection are also a concern. Additionally, it is of concern that, while some States have recognized conscientious objection, there is no legal framework or no adequate legal framework so that the right can be applied in practice, including the establishment of an alternative service that is compatible with the reasons for the conscientious objection. 70. States that have not yet done so should provide information to conscripts and persons serving voluntarily in the armed services about the right to conscientious objection, and allow applications both prior to and during military service. States, subject to the circumstance of the individual case meeting the requirements of the definition of a refugee as set out in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, should be encouraged to consider granting asylum to conscientious objectors who feel compelled to leave their country of origin because they fear persecution owning to their refusal to perform military service when there is no provision, or no adequate provision, for conscientious objection to military service. 17