Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations Procedures for determining conscientious objection claims Depending on the state, claims of conscientious objection may be reviewed by civilian, military or mixed boards. For example, Croatia has a civilian board – the Civil Service Commission – which includes representatives of the Ministries of Defence, of Justice, of Public Administration and for Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy. In April 2018, the Government of Croatia also appointed an Appeals Commission on conscientious objection (see Box 8.9). In Greece, a mixed civilian-military panel advises the Minister of Defence on individual applications. If the Minister refuses the application, the service member may appeal to a court. In the United States, on the other hand, a military investigative officer prepares a report to the military, in a process that is subject to procedural guarantees for the applicant, such as the ability to be legally represented and to introduce a rebutting statement.324 Box 8.9: Appeals by conscientious objectors in Croatia The Civil Service Commission considers individual requests for conscientious objection to military service. The Commission may reject the request for the following reasons: • if there is a final court decision that the applicant has committed a criminal offence by using a weapon or force; • if the applicant possesses a weapon (except if they have a licence to own a firearm as a memento); • if the applicant did not state whether they were seeking civil service for religious or moral reasons; and • if a civil service application is not filed for religious or moral reasons. Decisions of the Civil Service Commission can be appealed within 15 days at the Appeals Commission. The Appeals Commission acts as a second instance body that annuls or upholds the decision of the Civil Service Commission. It consists of three members and three deputies, who reach decisions by voting. Decisions are issued within 30 days and are final. A further appeal is possible, via an administrative lawsuit before the Administrative Court. UN Human Rights Commission Resolution 1998/77 calls on states that do not accept claims of conscientious objection as valid without inquiry to establish independent and impartial decisionmaking bodies tasked with determining whether a conscientious objection is genuinely held. Similarly, Council of Europe Recommendation 1518/2001 states: “The examination of applications shall include all the necessary guarantees for a fair procedure. An applicant shall have the right to appeal against the decision at first instance. The appeal authority shall be separate from the military administration and composed so as to ensure its independence.”325 324 UN ECOSOC, OHCHR report 2004, op. cit., note 310, paras. 38-41. 325 Ibid., para. 37. 141