A/HRC/42/39 55. With regard to the scope of its follow-up visits, the Working Group wishes to clarify that while follow-up visits primarily focus on the implementation of previous recommendations, there is nothing in the terms of reference for visits by independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council or in the Working Group’s methods of work that prevents it from examining other issues which have arisen since the original visit. To hold otherwise would prevent the Working Group from addressing issues that are current and pertinent to the country and would therefore significantly reduce the effectiveness of the visit. 56. The Working Group wishes to highlight its report following its 2013 visit, in which it concluded that “the concerns expressed about the prolonged periods of administrative detention of asylum seekers and immigrants in an irregular situation deserved to be addressed as a matter of priority”.6 The Working Group thus considers that the proposed visit to the two “transit zones” is a follow-up to the recommendations concerning the administrative detention of migrants issued in 2013. The fact that these facilities did not exist in 2013 should not be a reason not to visit them. 57. The Working Group appreciates ongoing engagement with the Government of Hungary and the various opportunities to clarify its mandate and methods of work. The Working Group regrets that despite its repeated efforts, the Government has not invited it to resume the visit. 58. The Working Group recalls Human Rights Council resolution 33/30 in which the Council called upon all States to cooperate with the Working Group fully and specifically encouraged States to extend invitations to the Working Group to visit. The Working Group also recalls that Hungary has maintained a standing invitation to the special procedures since March 2001. The Working Group therefore respectfully urges the Council to encourage the Government of Hungary to continue to engage fully with the Working Group, including by issuing an invitation to conduct a thorough visit in accordance with the terms of reference for visits by independent experts appointed by the Council. III. Thematic issues A. Deprivation of liberty in the context of conscientious objection to military service 59. Over the past 27 years, the Working Group has developed a considerable body of legal analysis relating to the freedom of conscience. The Working Group continues to receive communications that raise issues relating to the freedom of conscience, particularly the right to conscientious objection to military service. During the reporting period, the Working Group adopted opinions in which it upheld the right to conscientious objection to military service,7 drawing upon its jurisprudence and country visit reports as well as the approach taken by the Human Rights Committee and other human rights mechanisms. 60. In its opinion 40/2018,8 the Working Group set out the key principles that it applies in its consideration of cases involving conscientious objection to military service as follows: (a) While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not explicitly refer to a right to conscientious objection, such a right derives from the freedom of thought, conscience and religion protected under article 18, and under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 9 The obligation of an individual to use lethal force 6 7 8 9 26 A/HRC/27/48/Add.4, para. 124. See opinions No. 69/2018 and No. 40/2018. See the Government’s follow-up information, available at: www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ Detention/Opinions/ ROK-Reply_to_letter_WGAD_2019-02-25_10-50-23.pdf. See opinions No. 43/2017, No. 16/2008, No. 8/2008 and No. 24/2003; A/HRC/16/47/Add.3, para. 68; and A/HRC/10/21/Add.3, para. 66. See also Human Rights Council resolutions 20/2, 24/17 and 36/18