Regarding the duration of alternative service, the NHRCK stated in 2018 and 2019 in its ‘opinion on the proposed partial amendment of the Military Service Act and the Bill on the Assignment to and Performance of Alternative Service in relation to the introduction of the alternative service system’ that it is desirable to set the period of alternative service at no more than 1.5 times the period of active duty service. In April 2023, the NHRCK advised the Minister of National Defense to adjust (shorten) the current service period of 36 months for alternative service personnel within a range of six months. The NHRCK viewed that it is possible to shorten the alternative service period without amending the Military Service Act because Article 19 of the Act allows the Minister of National Defense to adjust the service period within the specified scope; based on this provision, the Ministry of National Defense indeed adjusted the service period of active duty soldiers to 18 months for the Army, 20 months for the Navy, and 21 months for the Air Force, to be applied beginning with personnel slated for discharge from military service after December 2021; and Article 19 of the Act on Assignment to and Performance of Alternative Service also provides that the Minister of National Defense may adjust the service period of alternative service personnel within a range of six months when adjusting the service period of active duty soldiers. 101 The Alternative Service Commission, composed of legal experts such as judges, grade 4 public officials or higher, psychiatrists, and human rights activists, under the Military Manpower Administration conducts the screening of individuals eligible for assignment to alternative service for conscientious objection. In the meantime, civil society organizations advocate for the complete privatization of the screening entity. 102 NHRCK, Opinion on the proposed partial amendment of the Military Service Act and the Bill on the Assignment to and Performance of Alternative Service in relation to the introduction of alternative service system (November 2018 and March 2019); and Recommendation for improvement of alternative service system for conscientious objectors (37 cases combined, Case No. 21Jinjeong0536400, April 2023). 103 The NHRCK viewed that Article 7 of the National Security Act violates the principle of clarity due to its multiplicity, vagueness, and broad scope of application; violates the principle of proportionality by punishing acts without assessing the substantial and realistic risks to the existence or security of the State or the free and democratic order, caused by such acts; and is inconsistent with treaties such as the ICCPR to which Korea is a party. The NHRCK thus concluded that the Article 7 is in violation of the Constitution. 104 NHRCK, Opinion on cases including the unconstitutional complaint against Article 7 of the National Security Act (August 2022); and Recommendation for the abolition of the National Security Act (August 2004). 105 In April 2021, Korea ratified the ILO Fundamental Conventions: Forced Labor Convention (No. 29), Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention (No. 87), and Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98). Under the Article 6 (1) of the Constitution, these conventions have the same effect as domestic laws. 106 The Hankyoreh, The ILO Letter Specifies Violation of Freedom of Association, unlike the Government’s Devaluation (6 December 2022). 100 39