Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel “First of all, the issue is one of discriminatory or intolerant policies, legislation or State practice, or even indifference on the part of State institutions which is prejudicial to minorities, be they of the ‘major religions’ or other religious and faith-based communities. Such minorities are mainly affected by […] non-recognition of conscientious objection, no provision for alternative civilian service, and the punitive nature of this civilian service by reason of its duration, which particularly affects the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religious and faith-based communities […].”302 Box 8.4: Recognition of grounds for conscientious objection in selected OSCE participating States303 Religious Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway, Romania, Sweden, the United Kingdom Ethical/ philosophical Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom Emotional Other Austria, Denmark, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden Denmark, Switzerland As can be seen, a number of OSCE participating States have recognized both religious and non-religious grounds for conscientious objection. In the United States, conscientious objection has been extended by judicial interpretation from the originally limited recognition of religious objections to include other ethical and philosophical objections (see Box 8.5). Box 8.5: The United States Supreme Court and conscientious objection In United States v. Seeger, the Supreme Court extended the application of the law on conscientious objection from religious beliefs to those with secular beliefs that are “sincere and meaningful [and occupy] a place in the life of the possessor parallel to that filled by an orthodox belief in God”.304 In Welsh v. United States, the Supreme Court found that conscientious objector status 302 UN ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights, “Civil and Political Rights, Including Religious Intolerance, Report submitted by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/33”, 13 February 2001, E/CN.4/2001/63, para. 182. 303 Responses to the ODIHR-DCAF 2018 questionnaire, qu. 20(d). Azerbaijan did not respond to the question, despite recognizing conscientious objection. 304 Supreme Court of the United States, Seeger v. United States, 8 March 1965, United States Reports, Vol. 380, 1965, pp. 163 and 166 136