Submission to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – 15 January 2026
Input for the OHCHR quadrennial analytical report on conscientious objection to military service
(HRC 62nd session, June 2026)
CONTACT: Aseistakieltäytyjäliitto – The Finnish Union of Conscientious Objectors (AKL)
Address: Veturitori 3, 00520 Helsinki, Finland
Website: https://akl-web.fi
Contact person: Aku Kervinen
Telephone: +358 40 836 2786
Email: toimisto@akl-web.fi
1. Introduction
This submission is provided by the Union of Conscientious Objectors (Aseistakieltäytyjäliitto, AKL) to inform the OHCHR analytical report requested by Human Rights Council resolution 20/2 and prepared for the Council’s 62nd session in June 2026.
Finland maintains male-only conscription and an alternative non-military service for those who object on grounds of conscience. Finland has received repeated recommendations from UN human rights bodies to ensure that alternative service is not punitive or discriminatory, remains civilian in nature, and that concerns relating to punishment of conscientious objectors are addressed.¹
2. Overview of conscription and conscientious objection in Finland
Under Finnish law and practice, male Finnish citizens are liable for military service from the year they turn 18. The duration of military service varies according to rank-and-file, demanding duties, or NCO/officer training.² By contrast, alternative (non-military) service has a single fixed duration.³
A person may apply for non-military service at call-ups, before beginning military service, or during service; in peacetime, applications are in principle approved automatically.³
Finland also provides for supplementary service: after completing military service, a reservist may apply for non-military status and is typically assigned a short complement service.³
Punitive length of alternative non-military service: The duration of non-military service is always 347 days, regardless of what the individual would otherwise have served in the military. For many conscripts, whose military service would have been shorter, alternative service therefore constitutes a substantially longer obligation.
UN human rights bodies have repeatedly stated that alternative service must not be punitive in length or nature. The Human Rights Committee’s 2021 concluding observations on Finland reiterate that alternatives to military service must not be punitive or discriminatory and must remain civilian in nature.¹
AKL emphasises that setting alternative service at the longest military service category creates a structural risk of punitive effect, particularly given the widespread use of shorter military service options.4
Civilian nature and civilian control: Alternative service is administered under civilian authorities. Nonetheless, AKL remains concerned about military influence in policy development affecting non-military service. Finland has been urged to ensure that alternative service remains outside military command and fully civilian.¹
AKL is particularly concerned about policy directions that increasingly frame non-military service through “comprehensive security” and preparedness, potentially undermining the conviction-based nature of conscientious objection.
Access to information and practical obstacles to applying: Finnish law requires authorities to provide sufficient information on applying for and performing non-military service.³ In practice information is often limited or uneven during call-ups.7
Moreover, during military service, conscripts who seek to change to non-military service may face pressure and/or delays, despite the legal requirement that applications be processed without delay.8 These practices undermine the effective accessibility of conscientious objection.
AKL also notes that in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., mobilisation), processing may shift from automatic approval to investigation mechanisms, creating risks of restrictive or inconsistent application precisely when protection of the right is most needed.³
Total objection and punishment: Conscientious objectors who refuse both military and non-military service (“total objectors”) may face criminal penalties, including imprisonment. This remains a central human rights concern, as conscientious objection is protected under freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and punishment for exercising this right raises serious issues.
Finland has been urged in multiple UN processes to stop detention and prosecution of conscientious objectors and to ensure that alternatives are not punitive or discriminatory.¹ In 2024, 19 total objectors were sentenced; preliminary data indicate approximately 25 such sentences in 2025.
3. Developments since 2023
Increased use of supplementary service: Data from non-military service authorities show a high number of supplementary service applications in 2024 (3,457) and non-military service applications (2,292), with applications reported as successful.9
In early 2024, public debate intensified following statements by the Minister of Defence regarding possible legislation to restrict resignations from the reserve, accompanied by a visible increase in related applications and media reporting.10 AKL is concerned that policy responses may move toward restricting conscience-based pathways rather than addressing underlying human rights compliance.
Preparedness framing in conscription policy and youth education: A government-appointed working group proposed reforms including a joint national defence day for all 17-year-olds in secondary education and expanded health assessments linked to service fitness, framed in terms of national defence and comprehensive security.11
AKL is concerned that such measures increase societal and institutional pressure toward militarised participation and further marginalise information and visibility about conscientious objection and non-military alternatives.
Legislative and policy emphasis on mobilisation capacity: Finland has advanced conscription-related initiatives linked to border security and mobilisation readiness.12 At the beginning of 2026, the maximum age for reserve service was raised from 60 to 65; the age of liability for non-military service and supplementary service was increased accordingly.13
AKL stresses that security policy shifts must not erode protections for freedom of conscience, nor justify punitive or discriminatory alternative service frameworks.
Ongoing reform of the Non-Military Service Act: In 2025, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (TEM), together with several ministries and the Non-Military Service Centre, prepared an assessment memorandum on developing non-military service and possible legislative amendments as part of a Government Programme project to link the system more closely to “comprehensive security.”5
The memorandum recommends retaining the current structure (short training followed by a long work placement), while steering placements increasingly toward tasks considered central to preparedness. It also outlines alternative organisational models (e.g., longer training, preparedness-oriented content), while acknowledging risks such as higher costs and reduced placement options.
Currently the reform of the Non-Military Service Act is being prepared by a working group in which the Ministry of Defence is represented.5 At the same time, a civil society representative of conscientious objectors (AKL) was excluded from the working group before its work began.6 This raises concerns about meaningful participation and civilian oversight.
From a human rights perspective, AKL highlights the following:
- Reforms must not narrow alternative service into “security-critical” functions that undermine access for a broad range of religious, ethical and political convictions protected by freedom of conscience.²
- AKL welcomes the memorandum’s recommendation to allow switching between military and non-military service while preserving credit for days already served. Removing day-credit would make alternative service more punitive and deter in-service conscientious objection.¹
- Any such training for non-military service must remain civilian in purpose, content, and command, and must not impose coercive duties that conflict with conscience or discriminate compared with reservist obligations.¹
- The memorandum does not recommend extending conviction investigations to supplementary-service applications in normal circumstances. AKL warns that expanding such procedures would significantly restrict practical access to conscientious objection; if used, they must be independent of military influence, accessible, and subject to effective review and appeal.¹
Overall, the ongoing reform process — expected to continue through 2026 — is a critical juncture: it could either improve compliance with international standards (notably on non-punitive duration and civilian character) or deepen existing challenges by shifting alternative service toward quasi-military preparedness.