It is common for alternative service to be longer in duration than military service to take account of the different work conditions and hours. A European norm of around 1 1/2 times the length of military service is common, although, in a minority of states (for example, Germany), the period is the same, and some have alternative service lasting up to twice as long as military service. The European Committee of Social Rights of the Council of Europe found that alternative civilian service twice the duration of military service was “excessive” in character and amounted to a “disproportionate restriction on ‘the right of the worker to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon’, and was contrary to article 1, paragraph 2, of the European Social Charter”.128 Where a difference between the duration of military service and alternative service is arbitrary or is merely designed to deter applicants from claiming alternative service, there is a possibility that it may be found to be discriminatory under constitutional129 or human rights law. General Comment 22 of the UN Human Rights Committee states: “there shall be no discrimination against conscientious objectors because they have failed to perform military service”.130 The Committee has recommended that states parties recognize the right of conscientious objection without discrimination:131 “conscientious objectors can opt for civilian service the duration of which is not discriminatory in relation to military service, in accordance with articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant”.132 The UN Human Rights Committee has also referred to the need for any difference to be based “on reasonable and objective criteria, such as the nature of the specific service concerned or the need for a special training in order to accomplish that service”.133 There may be other impediments to exercising the right to alternative service. In some countries, for example, alternative service is supervised by the military itself. Thus, people who opt for alternative service out of pacifist beliefs may have difficulty in fully distancing themselves from the military. Moreover, apart from differentials in the length of service discussed above, people who opt for alternative service may be denied equivalent economic or social rights in comparison with those who undergo military service. Again, this is an impediment to exercising the right to alternative service. 128  Quaker Council for European Affairs v. Greece, European Committee of Social Rights, 27 April 2001, International Human Rights Reports, Vol. 8, 2001, p. 1158. 129  See the decision of the Italian Constitutional Court (Decision No. 470 of 31 July 1985) declaring that the requirement to perform 20 months of alternative service in comparison with only 12 months of military service was a violation of the constitutional principle of equality. See José de Sousa e Brito, “Conscientious Objection”, in T. Lindholm, W. Cole Durham, and B. Tahzib-Lie, Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Deskbook (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/Brill Academic, 2004). 130  Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “General Comment No. 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, 30 July 1993, Art. 18, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4. 131  “Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Conscientious Objection to Military Service: Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights”, E/CN.4/2004/55, UN Commission on Human Rights, Sixtieth session, 16 February 2004, para. 14. 132  Ibid., para. 11. 133  Foin v. France, Human Rights Committee, 9 November 1999, Communication No. 666/1995, International Human Rights Reports, Vol. 7, 2000, p. 354. Also see Maille v. France, Human Rights Committee, 31 July 2000, Communication No. 689/1996, International Human Rights Reports, Vol. 7, 2000, p. 947; Vernier v. France, Human Rights Committee, 10 July 2000, Communication No. 690, and Nicolas v. France, Human Rights Committee, 10 July 2000, Communication No. 691/1996, both in International Human Rights Reports, Vol. 8, 2001, p. 26. Contrast the earlier decision in Järvinen v. Finland, Human Rights Committee, 23 March 1989, Communication No. 295/1988, Human Rights Committee Annual Report 1990, Annex IX.L., p. 367. 82 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel