A/HRC/35/4 religion or belief (forum internum) pursuant to article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 5 However, four Committee members favoured in their concurring individual opinions the Committee’s earlier approach, which had treated conscientious objection as an instance of manifestation of belief in practice (forum externum), and when considering article 18 (3), those Committee members concluded that the State party had not provided a sufficient justification for denying the right of conscientious objection. 6 Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention also continue to view conscientious objection to military service as a manifestation of one’s religion or belief.7 6. In the case of Young-kwan Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, the Human Rights Committee in 2014 found a violation of article 18 (1) of the Covenant, and also held that imprisoning the 50 Jehovah’s Witnesses concerned as punishment for refusing military service amounted to arbitrary detention under article 9. In that context, the Committee noted in paragraph 7.5 of those Views that just as detention as punishment for the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 19 of the Covenant, was arbitrary, so was detention as punishment for legitimate exercise of freedom of religion and conscience, as guaranteed by article 18 of the Covenant. 7. In 2015 and 2016, the Human Rights Committee adopted Views on 10 individual communications concerning conscientious objectors, finding, inter alia, violations of their right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person under article 10 of the Covenant and of the authors’ freedom of thought, conscience and religion.8 The Committee also recalled that the fundamental character of the freedoms enshrined in article 18 (1) of the Covenant was reflected in the fact that the provision could not be derogated from, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of the Covenant. 8. In concluding observations adopted in 2013 and 2014, the Human Rights Committee reiterated that domestic laws should provide for conscientious objections in a manner consistent with articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant, bearing in mind that article 18 also protected freedom of conscience of non-believers. 9 The Committee also stressed that alternative service arrangements should be accessible to all conscientious objectors without discrimination as to the nature of the beliefs (religious or non-religious beliefs grounded in conscience) justifying the objection.10 The terms “religion” and “belief” are to be broadly interpreted, since article 18 of the Covenant protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ibid., para. 7.5, and communication Nos. 1853/2008 and 1854/2008, Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, Views adopted on 29 March 2012, appendix II (“The right to refuse to kill must be accepted completely.”). See Jong-nam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, appendices II-IV. See also communications No. 2179/2012, Young-kwan Kim et al., Views adopted on 15 October 2014, appendix I; No. 2218/2012, Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2015, appendices I and II; No. 2221/2012, Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, appendix; No. 2222/2012, Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, appendix; No. 2223/2012, Japparow v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, appendix; No. 2219/2012, Nasyrlayev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 15 July 2016, annex; No. 2220/2012, Aminov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 14 July 2016, annex; No. 2224/2012, Matyakubov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 14 July 2016, annex; No. 2225/2012, Nurjanov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 15 July 2016, annexes I and II; and No. 2226/2012, Uchetov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 15 July 2016, annex. See A/HRC/7/10/Add.2, paras. 46 and 56; A/HRC/10/8/Add.4, para. 51; A/HRC/10/21/Add.1, pp. 144-145; A/HRC/19/60/Add.2, para. 54; A/HRC/23/51, p. 28; A/HRC/28/66/Add.2, para. 63; Working Group on Arbitrary Detention opinion No. 42/2015, para. 42; Heiner Bielefeldt, Nazila Ghanea and Michael Wiener, Freedom of Religion or Belief: An International Law Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 265-275 and 288-291. Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Japparow v. Turkmenistan, Nasyrlayev v. Turkmenistan, Aminov v. Turkmenistan, Matyakubov v. Turkmenistan, Nurjanov v. Turkmenistan, Uchetov v. Turkmenistan and communication No. 2227/2012, Yegendurdyyew v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 14 July 2016. See, for example, CCPR/C/KGZ/CO/2, para. 23. See CCPR/C/UKR/CO/7, para. 19. 3