A/HRC/41/23 I. Introduction 1. In its resolution 36/18, the Human Rights Council requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) to prepare, in consultation with all States and the relevant intergovernmental organizations, United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, special procedures, treaty bodies, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations, a report on different approaches and challenges with regard to the application procedures for obtaining the status of conscientious objector to military service in accordance with human rights standards. 2. In a note verbale and letters dated 12 October 2018, OHCHR invited stakeholders to provide any relevant information pursuant to the request made by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 36/18. Contributions were received from 13 Member States, eight non-governmental organizations and one special procedure mandate holder.1 3. The right to conscientious objection to military service is based on article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. While the Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right to conscientious objection, in 1993, the Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 22 (1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, stated that such a right could be derived from article 18 inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force might seriously conflict with freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief. 4. Although the Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Council, the special procedures of the Council, the Human Rights Committee and regional human rights courts have recognized the right to conscientious objection to military service, those seeking to exercise that right continue to face challenges. A number of States still do not recognize such a right, and as a result do not have in place provisions for conscientious objection to military service. Failure to recognize this right may lead to further violations for conscientious objectors, including arbitrary detention. In States that recognize the right to conscientious objection, implementation gaps impeding the full exercise of the right remain. These gaps, together with human-rights compliant procedures to overcome them, will be examined below (see paras. 10–59). II. Current trends and new developments 5. Since the previous quadrennial analytical report of the Office of the High Commissioner on conscientious objection to military service (A/HRC/35/4), human rights mechanisms, and in particular the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/TKM/CO/2, paras. 40–41), the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/34/50, para. 41), the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,2 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (see A/HRC/WGAD/2018/40 and A/HRC/WGAD/2018/69) and the Human Rights Council in the context of the universal periodic review 3 have continued to address relevant issues, highlighting also the consequences of violations of the right to conscientious objection. In its most recent views on individual communications relating to conscientious objection, the Human Rights Committee reiterated its constant jurisprudence according to which the prosecution and conviction of complainants who had refused to perform compulsory military service owing 1 2 3 2 For contributions received for the present report, previous reports of the Office of the High Commissioner on conscientious objection to military service, and the guidance published by OHCHR on conscientious objection (Conscientious Objection to Military Service, 2012), see www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Pages/ConscientiousObjection.aspx. See OL KOR 2/2018 and OL KOR 4/2018 (joint communications), available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/. See A/HRC/36/8, para. 100.84 and Add.1, para. 64; A/HRC/37/11, paras. 132.94–132.105 and Add.1, para. 32.