A/HRC/23/22 B. Restrictions on the right of freedom of expression for those who publicly support conscientious objectors and conscientious objection to military service 64. Additional challenges, according to War Resister’s International, concerned restrictions on the freedom to advocate conscientious objection to military service. By way of example, it stated that article 318 of the Turkish Penal Code prohibited “alienating the people from military service” and alleges that the provision had been used to punish statements in support of other conscientious objectors, arguing that it was a violation of article 19 of the Covenant, which guarantees freedom of expression. C. Conscientious objection for those serving voluntarily in the armed forces 65. Based on a questionnaire circulated requesting, inter alia, whether its member States had procedures for permitting members of the armed forces serving voluntarily to resign from the service for reasons on conscience, the Council of Europe reported that 22 of 33 States had indicated that they had such procedures. Some States (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands and the Republic of Moldova) indicated that if the armed forces opposed the request to resign, it would be subject to judicial review. Some countries (Austria, Croatia, Italy, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland) underlined that the timing and procedure to leave the armed forces were different according to the type of contract which engaged the person to the armed forces. In addition, a number of States (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Portugal, Slovakia and Ukraine) reported that resignation on grounds of conscience represented an unknown reason for resigning and that no particular regulations existed in this respect. It was noted that in all of these eight States professional members of the armed services could resign on the basis of their contractual right to terminate their service. 66. War Resisters’ International underlined the need for more States to adopt a framework for persons who joined the armed forces, but who subsequently developed a conscientious objection to have their applications heard. It added that, even in some States that had recognized conscientious objection for professional members of the armed forces, the procedures for considering an application could be unduly long. It alleged that for those serving in the United States armed forces, gaining recognition of conscientious objector status could take over two years, and that some unrecognized conscientious objectors consequently went absent without leave. D. Availability of information about the right to conscientious objection to military service 67. Based on replies to a questionnaire circulated to its member States concerning the existence of measures to ensure that conscripts and professional service personnel are informed about the right to leave the armed forces because of conscience issue and about the right to be granted conscientious objection status, the Council of Europe reported that 22 States had indicated that they had such measures to inform conscripts and professional service personnel, while eight States (Armenia, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Slovakia) indicated that they did not. 16