A/HRC/23/22 24. It should be noted that, prior to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in the case of Yoon and Choi in 2006 and the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Bayatyan v. Armenia in 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found in 2005 in Sahli Vera et al. v. Chile21 that “failure of the Chilean State to recognize ‘conscientious objector’ status in its domestic law, and the failure to recognize [the petitioners] as ‘conscientious objectors’ … does not constitute an interference with their right to freedom of conscience”. The Inter-American Commission stated that the “American Convention does not expressly create or even mention a right of ‘conscientious objection’”, and found no violation of the applicant’s rights under article 12 of the Convention providing for freedom of conscience and belief. It is an open question whether the Inter-American Commission, or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, would come to the same conclusion today in the light of the more recent jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights. B. The right of serving members of the armed forces, including conscripts and volunteers, to make a claim of conscientious objection to military service 25. An issue that is also important is whether an individual can make a claim of conscientious objection after he or she has joined the armed forces. The basis for allowing such a claim after a person has joined the armed forces is the language of article 18 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that an individual has the freedom “to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted this language to mean that a person has the right to change his or her religion or belief.22 In the case of a person subject to conscription, the Committee in its concluding observations on a State report urged the State “to amend its legislation on conscientious objection so that any individual who wishes to claim the status of conscientious objector may do so at any time, either before or after entering the armed forces”.23 The Commission on Human Rights indicated in its resolution 1993/84 that it was “aware that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections”, and affirmed “that persons performing compulsory military service should not be excluded from the right to have conscientious objections to military service”. 26. Although the Human Rights Committee has not addressed the precise issue of a person who has volunteered to serve in the armed forces and who then subsequently makes a claim for conscientious objection to military service, the more consistent position would be that such a claim should be granted if based on a change of religion or belief. It is useful to note in this regard that, in 2010, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation which states that “professional members of the armed forces should be able to leave the armed forces for reasons of conscience”.24 The recommendation indicates that conscripts already integrated in the armed forces should have the right to make a claim of conscientious objection to military service.25 21 22 23 24 25 8 Report No. 43/05, case 12,129, Merits (10 March 2005). General comment No. 22, para. 5. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights also provides that “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion … includes freedom to change his religion or belief” (art. 18). Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Spain, CCPR/C/79/Add 61, paras. 15 and 20. Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on human rights of members of the armed forces, para. 42. Ibid, paras. 40–46.