Box 10.2 Human Rights Commission Resolution 1998/77111 2. Welcomes the fact that some States accept claims of conscientious objection as valid without inquiry; 3. Calls upon States that do not have such a system to establish independent and impartial decision-making bodies with the task of determining whether a conscientious objection is genuinely held in a specific case, taking account of the requirement not to discriminate between conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs; 4. Reminds States with a system of compulsory military service … of its recommendation that they provide for conscientious objectors various forms of alternative service which are compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, of a non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive nature; … 6. Reiterates that States, in their law and practice, must not discriminate against conscientious objectors in relation to their terms or conditions of service, or any economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights. 111 The tendency towards increasing recognition of conscientious objection can be seen in the attitude of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Human Rights Commission. The text of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms expressly exempts military service from being treated as forced labour under Art. 4112 and fails to refer to conscientious objection per se. In a 1966 case from Germany, the European Court of Human Rights found that conscientious objectors do not have the right to exemption from military service, but that each contracting state may decide whether or not to grant such a right.113 Conscientious objectors may be required to perform civilian service instead of compulsory military service, and they do not have the right to be exempted from substitute civilian service. Later decisions have, however, refined this position in important respects. The Court has found that, although Art. 9 (protecting freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) does not confer a right of conscientious objection as such, nevertheless conscientious objection falls within its ambit. This means that, where states do recognize conscientious objection, they must do so in a way that is not discriminatory. Art. 14 of the Convention prevents discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Differences in the length of alternative service relative to the period of conscription that cannot be objectively justified may therefore breach Art. 14.114 In addition, in one instance, repeated punishment of a conscript who refused to wear a uniform for religious reasons reached the level of severity required to be seen as degrading treatment contrary to Art. 3 of the Convention.115 111  Adopted at the 58th meeting of the Human Rights Commission, 22 April 1998. 112  Art. 4 ECHR: “2 No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. “3 For the purpose of this article the term ‘forced or compulsory labour’ shall not include: ... “b any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service; … “d any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.” 113  Grandrath v. Federal Republic of Germany, European Commission of Human Rights, 23 April 1965, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, Vol. 10, 1967, p. 626. 114  Autio v. Finland, European Commission of Human Rights, 6 December 1991, Decisions and Reports, Vol. 72, 1991, p. 245; Julin v. Finland, European Commission of Human Rights, 6 December 1991 (unpublished); Raninen v. Finland, European Commission of Human Rights, 7 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, Vol. 8, 1997, pp. 2821-2822, para. 55. 115  Ülke v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, 24 January 2006 (unpublished). 77 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel