"No discrimination against conscientious objectors!"

In general, what must legislation include to meet international standards?

• Firstly, information must be readily available to all persons affected by military service about the possibility to be a recognized conscientious objector and the procedures to follow in order to exercise that right.
  
• Secondly and ideally, conscientious objection should be accepted on the basis of a declaration alone, without any tribunal to investigate the objection. But if this is not deemed possible, any such tribunal must be independent of the military and there must be no discrimination whatsoever against conscientious objectors on the basis of their individual beliefs, whether these are of a religious, moral, humanitarian or ideological nature.
  
• In particular, it must be noted that conscientious objection is by definition an individual right, not a collective one. It is not only available to members of churches with a pacifist theology, or members of conscientious objection or pacifist movements. It is available to all persons who are faced with military service as an individual right.
  
• Similarly, there can be no arbitrary time limits for registering a conscientious objection. Someone may come forward after they have been taken into the army and then claim to be a conscientious objector. Their objection must then be considered. Indeed, if they have finished their military service, and are called up for reserve duties, they can also say, “No, I am now a conscientious objector.” This is based on one of the basic principles of the Universal Declaration and International Covenant that the fundamental right of freedom of thought, conscience and belief also includes the freedom to change ones’ religion or belief.
  
• Next, there must be no subsequent civil disadvantages for conscientious objectors compared with those who have taken military service. In particular where (as in Colombia) the “libreta militar” is a essential document, there must be an equivalent document of equal status at the same charge (if any) for conscientious objectors who have not performed military service.
  
• Any punishment arising from conscientious objection to military service is a violation of the freedom of thought, conscience, belief, and religion. Punishments, therefore, can only apply when the state concerned has not accepted someone’s claim to be a conscientious objector and the objector persists with it, or, when the objector, for whatever reason, refuses to co-operate with the requirements of the relevant legislation. And, as is the case in Colombia identified by the UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that under no circumstances should conscientious objectors be imprisoned or detained.
  
• Finally, the international standards do not require that conscientious-objector conscripts must perform an alternative or substitute civilian service. This is simply a concession to states, which had been assured from the very beginning that civilian service for conscientious objectors would be a type of forced labour and related to military service.
  
• If, however, there is an alternative service for conscientious objectors, it must be compatible with the individual reasons for the conscientious objection. Some people may be quite happy to serve in the army, as long as they’re not carrying weapons. Others may not want to do anything that even indirectly aids the military effort or replaces the work that military personnel might otherwise do.
  
• All such arrangements must be under civilian control. And must be in the public interest. You cannot farm conscientious objectors out to profit-making enterprises and say that this is a valid alternative service.
  
• And finally, the duration, pay and all other conditions of work in alternative service must not be discriminatory in comparison with military service. Any differences must be objectively justified according to the individual case. The Human Rights Committee decided in 1999 against France in a case brought by conscientious objector Foin by this yardstick.

Derek Brett is director of Conscience and Peace Tax International (CPTI), a non-governmental organisation holding a special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations.