FACTSHEET

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

UNITED STATES COMMISSION on

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

732 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite #A714

Washington, DC 20401

202-523-3240

August 2020

By Kirsten Lavery, Supervisory Policy Analyst

Overview

Conscientious objection to military service is frequently connected to freedom of 

religion or belief, as many conscientious objectors are motivated by deeply-held 

religious beliefs. To protect the rights of these individuals, some states maintain laws 

that exempt them from compulsory military service. Often, objectors are required to 

participate in an alternative national service. 

Although the right to conscientious objection is recognized under international human 

rights law, a number of governments do not have provisions for conscientious objection 

to military service. When this right is not recognized in states with mandatory military 

service, conscientious objectors may face prison time for their beliefs.

Eritrea – No right to conscientious objection: Despite the signing of historic 

peace agreement with Ethiopia in 2018, the law in Eritrea still requires all citizens 

to perform national service between the ages of 14 and 50 with limited exceptions. 

The requirement includes 18 months of military service and training for those 

deemed fit. In practice, service often extends beyond 18 months. The law does 

not provide for conscientious objection status for religious reasons, and there 

are no alternatives for objectors who are willing to perform alternative civilian 

service. Hundreds of Eritreans are believed to remain religious prisoners of 

conscience, including Jehovah’s Witnesses imprisoned for exercising their beliefs 

and conscientiously objecting to military service.

Cuba – Illegal to invoke conscientious objection: In Cuba, all men are required to 

perform military service. There are no legal provisions to allow for conscientious 

objection. In April 2019, Cuba adopted a new constitution that makes it illegal 

to invoke conscientious objection with the “intention of evading compliance with 

the law.”

www.USCIRF.gov

@USCIRF

Media@USCIRF.gov

Gayle Manchin

Chair

Tony Perkins

Vice Chair

Anurima Bhargava

Vice Chair

Commissioners

Gary Bauer

James W. Carr

Frederick A. Davie

Nadine Maenza

Johnnie Moore

Nury Turkel

Erin D. Singshinsuk

Executive Director

USCIRF’s Mission

To advance international 

freedom of religion or 

belief, by independently 

assessing and unflinchingly 

confronting threats to this 

fundamental right.
USCIRF Legislation Factsheet: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: August 2020 2

International Standards

The UN Human Rights Committee (HRCttee)1 in General Comment 22 recognized “the right of everyone to have 

conscientious objection to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and 

religion” as provided for in Articles 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on 

Civil and Political Rights. This right is derived “in as much as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict 

with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief.” States must not differentiate among 

conscientious objectors based on their specific religious beliefs or discriminate against conscientious objectors who fail to 

perform military service.

Under the ICCPR, the right to religious freedom is non-derogable, even in times of public emergency or war. The HRCtee

and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have emphasized the right to hold beliefs that conscientiously object to 

military service is protected under Article 18(1) of the ICCPR and therefore cannot be limited by states.

Standards for Laws on Conscientious Objection

1 The HRCttee is the treaty body of independent experts charged with monitoring state parties’ compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

(ICCPR). Along with publishing its interpretation of the content of human rights provisions in its general comments, the HRCttee receives reports regularly from states 

on their implementation of rights. Through the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, the HRCttee is empowered to examine individual complaints with regard to alleged 

violations of the ICCPR by state parties. It is a different entity from the UN Human Rights Council, which is an inter-governmental body.

Many countries struggle with balancing national security 

concerns with international human rights standards, 

including in recognizing the right to conscientious 

objection. To ensure this right can be fully exercised, states 

should have legislation in place on conscientious objection 

that complies with international human rights standards.

Azerbaijan – Constitutional right to conscientious 

objection, but no right in practice: Azerbaijan

maintains mandatory military service due to the 

conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. While 

the constitution provides a right to conscientious 

objection, the country has yet to enact a law on 

alternative civilian service. Without this option, 

conscientious objectors are criminally prosecuted 

for refusing military service. The HRCtee and the 

European Court of Human Rights in cases, including 

Mushfig Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, have 

called on Azerbaijan to give practical effect to the 

constitutional right of conscientious objection by 

providing for alternative civil service and repealing 

sanctions against objectors. 

 Any process for obtaining status as a conscientious 

objector must meet international human rights 

standards: While some states accept an individual’s 

conscientious objection as valid without further review, 

other states require conscientious objectors to apply 

for this status. As provided for by the UN Special 

Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the UN 

High Commissioner for Human Rights, any application 

process should be:

– Transparent: Objectors should be provided with 

information regarding their rights and responsibilities 

for seeking conscientious objector status, along with 

details on the process.

– Accessible: The application process for conscientious 

objection must be accessible. There should not 

be a cost or the option for a payment to evade 

military service. 

– Non-discriminatory and available to all: The 

application process must be non-discriminatory, 

including among religious groups or on the basis 

of the grounds for objection. The option for 

conscientious objection should not be limited 

to specific religious groups or even to religious 

objections, as some conscientious objectors may be 

driven by ethical, humanitarian, or other beliefs. 

– Not time restricted: There should not be strict 

time limits for when an individual must apply for 

conscientious objector status, and doing so should be 

available before, during, and after performing military 

service. This is particularly important as individual’s 

beliefs may evolve during his or her military career.
3 USCIRF Legislation Factsheet: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: August 2020

Kyrgyzstan– limits on religious communities 

that can apply for conscientious objections: In 

Kyrgyzstan, only members of registered religious 

communities whose teachings prohibit the use of 

arms can obtain status as conscientious objectors. 

In light of this limitation, the HRCttee has called on 

Kyrgyzstan to ensure that conscientious objection 

adheres to international human rights standards, 

including the principle of non-discrimination and the 

protection of individuals whose non-religious beliefs 

lead them to conscientiously object.

 Decisions regarding the status of conscientious 

objectors should be made by an independent civilian 

body: As recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur 

on freedom of religion or belief, an independent and 

impartial body that is separate from the military should 

decide claims of conscientious objection. Individuals 

must also have the right to appeal decisions to an 

independent and civilian judicial body.

Russia – failure to establish independent decision 

making body: In Russia, conscientious objectors 

must apply to a draft board for alternative military 

service. While the draft board is separate from the 

military by law, in practice, there are reports that the 

military does not permit the draft board to make 

independent decisions.

 Decisions must be made in good faith and timely: 

Determinations on applications should be made in 

good faith. Criteria must be relevant and reasonable, 

particularly any examination of a person’s beliefs. The 

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights discourages 

the use of disqualifying conditions, in recognition that 

individuals have the right to change their beliefs and 

that the right to conscientious objection applies also to 

partial or selective objectors who believe the use of force 

is justified in some circumstances but not in others. 

Decisions should also be timely, with a resolution 

reached before the individual is conscripted. 

South Korea – bad faith inquiries: In South Korea, 

prosecutors have tried to appeal decisions granting 

conscientious objector status, arguing that some 

objectors were insincere for reasons such as playing 

first-person shooter video games. The Seoul Southern 

District Court, however, ruled that individuals can 

still be conscientious objectors even when they enjoy 

violent video games, noting that playing such games 

“does not necessarily mean they had a propensity 

for violence or that their religious convictions 

were weak.”

 Objectors may be required to perform comparable 

civilian alternative service: In some states with 

compulsory military service, conscientious objectors 

are exempted from military service. In others states, 

objectors may be required to perform an alternative 

service, which must be compatible with human rights, 

including that it is:

– Compatible with the reasons for conscientious 

objection, which may require a civilian or noncombatant position: The alternative service must be 

compatible with the objector’s reason for opposing 

military service. As any individual has the absolute 

right to be exempted from compulsory military 

service if it cannot be reconciled with his or her 

religion or belief, a state can only require the objector 

to undertake a civilian alternative to military service. 

This civilian alternative must be outside the military 

sphere and not under military command. (See Cenk 

Atasoy v. Turkey). An objector who is opposed to 

bearing arms but not unarmed military service may 

be required to take up a non-combatant position 

within the military, such as a medical or clerical role.

Tajikistan – no civilian alternative service: In 

Tajikistan, there is not a genuine civilian alternative to 

military service for individuals who are conscripted. 

While the government has claimed that a law is being 

developed, conscientious objector Jovidon Bobojonov’s

request to perform alternative civilian service was 

denied. He has been held pending a criminal trial for 

fabricated charges of “inciting religious hatred” since 

October 2019.
USCIRF Legislation Factsheet: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: August 2020 4

– Not punitive: According to the UN Special Rapporteur 

on freedom of religion or belief, the alternative 

civilian service may be “at least as onerous as military 

service” to “avoid opportunism,” but it should not 

be so arduous as to constitute a punishment. The 

term of alternative service would be punitive when 

conscientious objectors are required to serve for a 

much longer duration than their counterparts and 

the increased service requirement is not based on 

reasonable and objective grounds. 

– In the public interest: The alternative service should be 

a real service to the community.

South Korea – steps towards alternative service: For 

decades, all able-bodied men in South Korea have 

been required to serve in the military for about two 

years, as part of a conscription effort to defend the 

country from North Korea. Few exemptions were 

granted, and South Korea had been one of the few 

countries not to offer alternative civilian service, 

which led to around 19,000 conscientious objectors 

being imprisoned for up to three years since the 1950s 

for refusing to serve in the military. 

Recently, South Korea has taken steps to ensure 

its system conforms to international human rights 

standards. In June 2018, the Constitutional Court 

issued a decision requiring the government to revise 

the law to introduce alternative military service. 

Immediately following the decision, the government 

ceased imprisoning conscientious objectors. In 

December 2019, the National Assembly amended

the law to allow conscientious objectors to fulfill 

the military service obligations by working for 36 

months, the longest alternative service requirement in 

the world, at a correctional facility. This law has been 

criticized for failing to meet international standards. 

UN experts expressed several concerns, including 

regarding the length of alternative service, the 

exclusive focus on detention centers, and the failure 

to take into account the preferences and skills of the 

conscientious objector to ensure real public service.

 States should not imprison individuals solely based on 

their conscientious objection or otherwise discriminate 

against conscientious objectors: While conscientious 

objectors can be required to perform alternative civilian 

service, states should refrain from imprisoning these 

individuals based on their refusal to perform military 

service. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

has noted that the detention of individuals based on 

their genuine beliefs that conflict with military service 

is a per se violation of the absolute right to hold beliefs 

enshrined in Article 18(1) of the ICCPR. Repeated 

incarcerations should not be used to try to force 

conscientious objectors to change their beliefs. Beyond 

criminal prosecutions, conscientious objectors should 

not be discriminated against based on their beliefs, 

including in employment or through the deprivation 

of other rights.

Turkmenistan – imprisonment of conscientious 

objectors: In Turkmenistan, there is no alterative 

civilian service and the government routinely 

imprisons conscientious objectors, who are facing 

increasingly severe penalties. There are currently 8 

conscientious objectors known to be in prison and 

charged under article 219(1) of the Criminal Code 

for the absence of a legal basis for exemption from 

military service. In July 2019, Bahtiyar Atahanov

received a 4-year sentence for conscientious 

objection, the harshest sentence to date. He was 

forcibly brought to a military unit and then charged 

as an active serviceman in dereliction of duty.

Turkey – discrimination against conscientious 

objectors: In Turkey, conscientious objection is not 

recognized and there are no provisions for alternative 

service. In addition to prosecuting and imprisoning 

conscientious objectors, the Ministry of National 

Defense sends letters to employers of conscientious 

objectors, causing them to lose their jobs.
UNITED STATES COMMISSION on INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

732 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite #A714

Washington, DC 20401

202-523-3240

www.USCIRF.gov

@USCIRF

Media@USCIRF.gov

Conclusion

States must universally ensure the right to object to 

military service based on genuinely-held religious beliefs 

as an integral part of the absolute right to hold beliefs. 

Yet, some states fail to recognize this right in law or in 

practice, erroneously citing national security concerns. 

In these countries, individuals are often imprisoned and 

discriminated against for conscientious objection.

In addition to urging the release of all individuals detained 

for conscientious objection, the United States Commission 

on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) calls 

on states to ensure their laws comprehensively protect 

conscientious objectors, including by providing a process 

to obtain this status that complies with international 

standards. When compliant with these principles, 

civilian alternatives to military service can facilitate the 

contribution of conscientious objectors to the public good, 

while respecting their beliefs and rights. 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an independent, bipartisan federal government entity established by the 

U.S. Congress to monitor, analyze, and report on threats to religious freedom abroad. USCIRF makes foreign policy recommendations to the President, 

the Secretary of State, and Congress intended to deter religious persecution and promote freedom of religion and belief.

Professional Staff

Danielle Ashbahian

Senior Communications Specialist

Keely Bakken

Policy Analyst

Dwight Bashir

Director of Outreach and Policy

Elizabeth K. Cassidy

Director of Research and Policy

Patrick Greenwalt

Researcher

Gabrielle Hasenstab

Communications Specialist

Roy Haskins

Director of Finance and Office 

Management

Thomas Kraemer

Senior Advisor for Strategic Outreach

Kirsten Lavery

Supervisory Policy Analyst

Jason Morton

Policy Analyst

Dominic Nardi

Supervisory Policy Analyst

Mohyeldin Omer

Policy Analyst

Jamie Staley

Senior Congressional Relations Specialist

Zack Udin

Researcher

Nina Ullom

Congressional Relations Specialist

Madeline Vellturo

Policy Analyst

Scott Weiner

Senior Policy Analyst

Kurt Werthmuller

Supervisory Policy Analyst