Procedures for determining conscientious-objection claims In practice, options vary from those countries that have predominantly civilian boards, to those that have military bodies, while some countries have an intermediate system. An example of a country with a civilian board is Croatia, where the Civil Service Commission includes a representative of the Ministry of Defence; the Ministry of Justice, Administration, and Local Self-Government; and the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. The Greek system is an intermediate one, in that a mixed civilian-military panel advises the minister of defence (if the minister refuses the application, the member of the armed forces may appeal to a court). In the United States, on the other hand, a military investigative officer prepares a report to the military, subject to procedural guarantees for the applicant, such as the ability to be legally represented and to introduce a rebutting statement.142 143 Box 10.10 Bodies That Determine Claims of Conscientious Objection143 Body Concerned Countries Armed Forces Czech Republic, Denmark, Norway, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, United States Court Belarus, Finland, Germany, Russian Federation Commission Belarus, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Ukraine, United States UN Human Rights Commission Resolution 1998/77 calls upon states that do not accept claims of conscientious objection as valid without inquiry to establish independent and impartial decision-making bodies with the task of determining whether a conscientious objection is genuinely held in a specific case. In a similar fashion, Council of Europe Recommendation 1518/2001 states: “The examination of applications shall include all the necessary guarantees for a fair procedure. An applicant shall have the right to appeal against the decision at first instance. The appeal authority shall be separate from the military administration and composed so as to ensure its independence.”144 4. Best Practices and Recommendations145 • Information should be made available to all persons affected by military service about the right to conscientious objection to military service, and the means of acquiring conscientious-objector status; • Conscientious objection should be available both for conscripts and for professional soldiers both prior to and during military service, in line with the recommendations of international bodies; • Where a state does not accept a statement of conscientious objection at face value, there should be independent review panels (or where not independent, adequate procedural safeguards should be in place); • Conscientious objectors should not be subject to repeated punishment for failure to perform military service; • There should be no discrimination against conscientious objectors in relation to their terms or conditions of service, or any economic, social, cultural, civil, or political rights; 142  “Civil and Political Rights”, op. cit., note 107, paras. 38-41. 143  ODIHR-DCAF questionnaire, question 34.a; participating States not replying: Armed Forces question: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Finland, Lithuania, Slovenia, United Kingdom; Court/Commission question: Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom. 144  “Civil and Political Rights”, op. cit., note 107, para. 37. 145  A number of these are adapted from “Civil and Political Rights”, op. cit., note 107. 85 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel