A/HRC/42/39 within a military institution may seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief. 10 While not explicitly raised in opinion No. 40/2018, the Working Group considers that persons performing military service who may not have had conscientious objections may develop such objections as they proceed with the service;11 (b) In its earlier jurisprudence, the Working Group considered conscientious objection to military service to be a manifestation of one’s conscience, which could be subject to limitations under article 18 (3) of the Covenant that are prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.12 However, a more progressive approach that ensures more comprehensive protection of human rights, and reflects a growing consensus regarding the harm to society involved in obliging individuals to take up arms and to take part in a military process involving training in the use of force despite their convictions, is now warranted. The Working Group takes the view that detention of a conscientious objector is a violation per se of article 18 (1) of the Covenant.13 That is, the right to conscientious objection to military service is part of the absolutely protected right to hold a belief under article 18 (1) of the Covenant, which cannot be restricted by States; (c) The right to conscientious objection entitles any individual to an exemption from compulsory military service if this cannot be reconciled with that individual’s religion or beliefs.14 States should refrain from imprisoning individuals solely on the basis of their conscientious objection to military service, and should release those that have been so imprisoned.15 However, a State may compel the objector to undertake a civilian alternative to military service, outside the military sphere and not under military command. Alternative service must not be punitive; it must be a real service to the community and compatible with respect for human rights;16 (d) All States should adopt appropriate legislative or other measures to ensure that conscientious objector status is recognized and attributed. Repeated prosecution and incarceration of conscientious objectors should not be used to force individuals to change their beliefs.17 61. In applying these principles to the deprivation of liberty of individuals who refuse to enlist in military service as the direct result of their genuinely held religious and conscientious beliefs, the Working Group has found violations of categories I, II and V of its methods of work.18 While each case depends on its own facts, the Working Group considers that the detention of conscientious objectors is a per se violation of article 18 (1) of the Covenant and such a detention will therefore usually lack a legal basis according to category I. Moreover, given that the detention of conscientious objectors results from the exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under article 18 of the Covenant, it will also often fall within category II. Finally, when the detention of conscientious objectors to military service involves discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, it will amount to a category V violation. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 and Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1989/59, 1991/65, 1993/84, 1995/83, 1998/77, 2000/34, 2002/45 and 2004/35. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, para. 11. Human Rights Council resolution 24/17 and Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1993/84, 1995/83 and 1998/77. Opinion No. 16/2008, para. 36. See opinions No. 69/2018, paras. 19–20; No. 40/2018, para. 44; and No. 43/2017, para. 34. See also Human Rights Committee, Young-kwan Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/112/D/2179/2012). Human Rights Committee, Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/101/D/16421741/2007), paras. 7.2–7.4. See also AL KOR 2/2018 and the State’s response. Human Rights Council resolution 24/17, paras. 10–11. Human Rights Committee, Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.3. E/CN.4/2001/14, paras. 91–94. See opinions No. 43/2017, No. 40/2018 and No. 69/2018. In addition, category III violations of the right to fair trial may also be found in any individual case. 27