E/CN.4/1992/52 page 178 degree of religious freedom in countries in which they temporarily reside. However, he also noted the intransigent attitude of some Governments, which deny certain rights and freedoms to citizens of countries that they expect to grant full religious freedom to their own co-religionists. 185. The Special Rapporteur has dealt with several cases of conscientious objection in the exercise of his mandate, in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration. He felt that it would be appropriate to establish a set of criteria regarding this issue. The responses to the questionnaire provided additional insight which helped him to formulate his views on the matter more precisely. Conscientious objectors should be exempted from combat but could be required to perform comparable alternative service of various kinds, which should be compatible with their reasons for conscientious objection, should such service exist in their country. To avoid opportunism, it would be acceptable if this service were at least as onerous as military service, but not so onerous as to constitute a punishment for the objector. They could also be asked to perform alternative service useful to the public interest, which may be aimed at social improvement, development or promotion of international peace and understanding. Conscientious objectors should be given full information about their rights and responsibilities and about the procedures to be followed when seeking recognition as conscientious objectors, bearing in mind that application for the status of conscientious objector has to be made within a specific time frame. The decision concerning their status should be made, when possible» by an impartial tribunal set up for that purpose or a by regular civilian court, with the application of all the legal safeguards provided for in international human rights instruments. There should always be a right to appeal to an independent, civilian judicial body. The decision-making body should be entirely separate from the military authorities and the conscientious objector should be granted a hearing, and be entitled to legal representation and to call relevant witnesses. 186. The Special Rapporteur noted that most countries did not consider the expression of extremist or fanatical opinions as occurring frequently on their soil, which presents a pronounced contrast with the allegations regarding such incidents that he has received since the beginning of his mandate. He was pleased to note, however, that a number of countries had taken very specific steps to curb the expression of extremist or fanatical opinions and have also invoked their obligation to do so under the international human rights instruments to which they had adhered. What the Special Rapporteur found disquieting, on the other hand, was instances when extremist opinions had been voiced publicly by Governments themselves and when the authorities had not taken timely measures to prevent the expression of such opinions where they were in a position to do so. 187. The Constitutions or basic laws of most countries implicitly or explicitly provide for protection from intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief. In addition, such acts are considered criminal offences in numerous countries. The existence of such provisions was often cited as being a sufficient deterrent for such acts, even when they did not cover all the freedoms enshrined in the Declaration. Despite the difficulties involved in attempting to make a comparative assessment of country legislation, the Special Rapporteur noted that very few countries had introduced specific judicial and administrative remedies of which victims of acts of religious