CCPR/C/126/D/2302/2013 provide any documents, such as copies of the arrest warrants, court decisions or imprisonment records, confirming his 2004 conviction and establishing that he was convicted again for the same crime. Accordingly, the Committee considers that this part of the communication has been insufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims under article 18 (1) of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. In the absence of any other challenges to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it concerns the authors’ claims under article 18 (1) of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that their rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant have been violated due to the absence in the State party of an alternative to compulsory military service, and as a result, their refusal to perform military service because of their religious beliefs led to their criminal prosecution and subsequent imprisonment. 7.3 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 times of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence to the effect 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. 5 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 and the right to manifest them. 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 be compatible with respect for human rights. 6 7.4 In the present case, the Committee notes that it is uncontested that the authors’ refusal to perform compulsory military service derives from their religious beliefs. The Committee recalls that repression of the refusal to be drafted for compulsory military service, exercised against persons whose conscience or religion prohibits the use of arms, is incompatible with article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 7 It also recalls that during the 5 6 7 GE.19-19105 Yoon and Choi v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/88/D/1321-1322/2004), para. 8.3; Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/106/D/1786/2008), para. 7.3; Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey (CCPR/C/104/D/1853-1854/2008), para. 10.4; Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/112/D/2179/2012), para. 7.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/113/D/2218/2012), para. 7.7; Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/115/D/2221/2012), para. 7.5; Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/115/D/2222/2012), para. 7.5; Japparow v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/115/D/2223/2012), para. 7.6; Nurjanov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/117/D/2225/2012 and Corr.1), para. 9.3; and Uchetov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/117/D/2226/2012), para. 7.6. Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/101/D/1642-1741/2007), para. 7.3; Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/106/D/1786/2008), para. 7.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7; Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/115/D/2221/2012), para. 7.5; Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/115/D/2222/2012), para. 7.5; Japparow v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; Nurjanov v. Turkmenistan, para. 9.3; and Uchetov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6. Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/106/D/1786/2008), para. 7.5; Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, para. 10.5; Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/112/D/2179/2012), para. 7.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.8; Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/115/D/2221/2012), para. 7.6; Hudaybergenov v. 5