Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations States. While a geographically representative approach across the OSCE region​was the aim, the compendium relied, to some degree, on participating States’ responses to ODIHR’s survey, as well as accessible case information. The Importance of Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel The “citizen in uniform” approach implies that armed forces personnel, whether professional or conscripted, are entitled to the same rights and protections as all other persons, subject to certain limitations imposed by military service. Indeed, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, including armed forces personnel, is part of the OSCE’s comprehensive concept of security, which links the maintenance of peace to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.3 Nevertheless, in some states, members of the armed forces, and in particular conscripted soldiers, are subjected to abuse, brutality, bullying, harassment, violence, ill-treatment, torture and other unlawful practices. Such practices can lead to serious accidents, injuries, disabilities, death or suicide. Unfortunately, these practices may be institutionalized as part of a wider military culture that is characterized by impunity for perpetrators and disrespect for the dignity of human beings. The constitutions or laws of some states disproportionately restrict service personnel’s enjoyment of their human rights. For example, in many states, armed forces personnel are not allowed to fully exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly (see “Chapter 5: Civil and Political Rights” and “Chapter 6: Freedom of Expression”). Consequently, armed forces personnel may be hindered from speaking for themselves or voicing concern about cases of human rights violations. As this situation can be exacerbated by the closed nature of military institutions, it is important for governments to ensure that human rights are protected in the barracks. Human rights are conceptually indivisible and an entitlement of being human. Indeed, the exercise of some human rights cannot be limited at all.4 However, the exercise of other 3 Principle 2 of the OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, states: “The participating States confirm the continuing validity of their comprehensive concept of security, as initiated in the Final Act, which relates the maintenance of peace to the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”; See: Title VII of the Code of Conduct, discussed in greater detail in “Chapter 2: OSCE Commitments”. 4 These include the right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way; prohibition of slavery; prohibition of medical or scientific experimentation without consent; prohibition of imprisonment on the grounds of the inability to fulfil a contractual obligation; prohibition against the retrospective operation of criminal laws; and the right to be recognized as a person before the law. While parts of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and of the right to life are also considered absolute rights, some restrictions to these rights apply. For example, manifestation of religion may be limited, and persons right to life is not breached if, for example, a public authority uses necessary and proportionate force to stop a person from carrying out unlawful violence. For more information on reservations, derogations and limitations, see “Chapter 3: International Human Rights Law”, including Box 3.2. 19