Human Rights (presently, the United Nations Human Rights Council) Resolution 1993/84 and the United Nations Human Rights Committee (March 2005) emphasize that a private institution, not a government institution, should have authority over the screening of conscientious objectors as an independent and fair decision-making body, and the Commission also made a recommendation to this effect. As such, we concluded that it was desirable to have an institution independent from drafting and military service take charge of the screening to ensure fairness and independence, to separate the body for screening from the body for re-screening, and to recruit judges with A report on conscientious objection to military service adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council (35th session in 2017) stipulates that, for the term of alternative service to exceed that of military service, the excess period must be decided based on objective and justifiable standards and the term of alternative service for conscientious objectors must not be punitive in nature. However, the proposed bills lack objective and justifiable grounds in proposing the term of alternative service be twice as long as that of the army or air force, and the proposed term is substantively punitive. We concluded that it is desirable for the term of alternative service not to exceed 1.5 times that of military service at the longest based on our comprehensive consideration of the relevant details, levels of difficulty, and categories. The United Nations Human Rights Committee recommended the development of alternative civilian services that are not related to and supervised by the military, and we also recommended the adoption of obligatory activities contributing to the peace of society, the maintenance of order, and the protection of lives such as relief work, patient transportation, and firefighting activities. Some bills proposed the removal of landmines and the investigation and extraction of remains of those killed in battle as specific alternative services, and we viewed it as inappropriate to include such tasks affiliated with the military or the Ministry of National Defense in the categories of alternative service pursuant to current law. National Human Rights Commission of Korea Annual Report 2018 53 Part 2 | Commission's Major Activities diverse backgrounds instead of those from certain ministries or fields.