Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations 28. The participating States will reflect in their laws or other relevant documents the rights and duties of armed forces personnel. They will consider introducing exemptions from or alternatives to military service.” Additionally, the ODIHR-Venice Commission Guidelines for Review of Legislation Pertaining to Religion or Belief note the clear trend in most democratic states to provide alternative service for conscientious objectors and, with reference to existing international documents, stress that state laws should not be unduly punitive for those who cannot serve in the military for reasons of conscience.276 Conscientious objection under the ICCPR Freedom of conscience is recognized under Article 18(1) of the ICCPR, which reads: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” Although a state may place limitations on the manifestation of a person’s religion or beliefs under Article 18(3), the first sentence of this provision sets out absolute rights. In earlier jurisprudence, the Human Rights Committee found that “[t]he Covenant does not provide for the right to conscientious objection; neither article 18 nor article 19.”277 In 1993, however, the Committee argued that, while there was no explicit reference to conscientious objection in the Covenant, “such a right can be derived from Article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief.”278 This was reflected in decisions of the Committee, initially mainly in those where it found no violation of Article 18 on the facts, because the complainant had failed to satisfy the domestic authorities regarding the serviceperson’s “insurmountable objection to military service” or had not claimed a conscientious objection to performing military service.279 In 2007, in a complaint brought against South Korea, the Committee decided, for the first 276 ODIHR - Venice Commission, Guidelines for Review of Legislation Pertaining to Religion or Belief (Warsaw: ODIHR, 2004), pp. 22-23. 277 UN Human Rights Committee, LTK v. Finland, Communication No. 185/1984, para. 5.2. 278 UN Human Rights Committee, “General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion)”, 30 July 1993, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, para 9.3. 279 See: UN Human Rights Committee, Westerman v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 682/1996; and Dr JP v. Canada, Communication No. 446/1991, para 4.2. In the latter case, the Committee rejected the application because it did not consider that the right to conscientious objection extended to the right not to pay taxes for military activities. 129