CCPR/C/117/D/2219/2012 8.7 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 22 (1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in which it considers that the fundamental character of the freedoms enshrined in article 18 (1) is reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be derogated from, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence stating that although the Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right of conscientious objection, such a right derives from article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to be involved in the use of lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.18 The right to conscientious objection to military service inheres in the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It entitles any individual to an exemption from compulsory military service if such service cannot be reconciled with that individual’s religion or beliefs. The right must not be impaired by coercion. A State may, if it wishes, compel the objector to undertake a civilian alternative to military service, outside the military sphere and not under military command. The alternative service must not be of a punitive nature. It must be a real service to the community and compatible with respect for human rights. 19 8.8 In the present case, the Committee considers that the author’s refusal to be drafted for compulsory military service derives from his religious beliefs and that the author’s subsequent conviction and sentence amounted to an infringement of his freedom of thought, conscience and religion in breach of article 18 (1) of the Covenant. In this context, the Committee recalls that repression of the refusal to be drafted for compulsory military service, exercised against persons whose conscience or religion prohibit the use of arms, is incompatible with article 18 (1) of the Covenant.20 It also recalls that during the consideration of the State party’s initial report under article 40 of the Covenant, the Committee expressed its concern that the Military Service and Military Duty Act, as amended on 25 September 2010, does not recognize a person’s right to exercise conscientious objection to military service and does not provide for any alternative military service and recommended that the State party, inter alia, take all necessary measures to review its legislation with a view to providing for alternative service.21 Accordingly, the Committee finds that, by prosecuting and convicting the author for the refusal to perform compulsory military service due to his religious beliefs and conscientious objection, the State party has violated his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7, 10 (1), 14 (7) and 18 (1) of the Covenant. 18 19 20 21 10 See communications Nos. 1321/2004 and 1322/2004, Yeo-Bum Yoon and Myung-Jin Choi v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 3 November 2006, para. 8.3; No. 1786/2008, Jong-nam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.3; Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, paras. 10.4 and 10.5; No. 2179/2012, Young-kwan Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 15 October 2014, para. 7.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7; Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.5; Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.5; and Japparow v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6. See communications Nos. 1642-1741/2007, Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 7.3; Jong-nam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7; Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.5; Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.5; and Japparow v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6. See Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Jong-nam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.5; Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, paras. 10.4 and 10.5; Young-kwan Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.8; Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; and Japparow v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7. See CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 16.