E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1 Page 77 359. An inquiry was launched by the Military Prosecution Office into his allegation of ill-treatment in prison. This inquiry is still underway. 360. Mehmet Tarhan went on hunger strike between 25 May and 29 June 2005 during which he refused any assistance including food and drink and consumed only sugar and vitamin pills. 361. The Government further informed the Special Rapporteur that Article 72 of the Turkish Constitution stipulates that national service is the right and duty of every Turkish citizen, the implementation of which shall be regulated by law. In this framework, according to Article 1 of the Military Act No. 1111 military service is an obligatory service for every man who is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey. In this light, it is not possible to be exempted from military service on grounds of conscientious objection under Turkish legislation in force. Currently, there is no legislation or application on alternative service in Turkey. 362. The Government indicated that conscientious objection has not been recognized as a right under international law. In this framework, Article 4(3) b) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms stipulates that forced or compulsory labour shall not include “any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognized, service exacted instead of compulsory military service”. Thus, this provision explicitly leaves the recognition of conscientious objectors to the discretion of States. Similar wording is used in Article 8(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission have supported the view that “the Convention and its Protocols do not guarantee, as such, any right to conscientious objection and that Article 9 of the Convention, which provision guarantees to everyone the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, does not give conscientious objectors the right to be exempted from military or substitute civilian service. It does not prevent a Contracting State from imposing sanctions on those who refuse such service (cf. No. 7705/76, Dec. 5.7.77. D.R.9 p. 196; No. 10600/83, Dec. 14.10.85, D.R. 44 p. 155; and No. 17086/90, Dec. 6.12.91, D.R. 72, p. 245). Additional response from the Government dated 2 December 2005 363. The Government informed that Military Prosecutor’s Office initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment at the Military Prison at the 5th Infantry Training Brigade Command, where he is currently detained. As a result of the investigation, an indictment was issued on 26 October 2005 charging an officer and a non-commissioned officer in the military prison administration with neglecting official duty and charging two detainees with looting. The trial is underway at the Military Court of the 5th Infantry Training Brigade Command. Observations 364. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s response to this communication. However, she would like to underline that she did not raise the issue of conscientious objection under article 8 of the ICCPR but rather under article 18 ICCPR. Moreover, the right to conscientious objection has been addressed by the