Seon-hyeok Kim is facing one of the greatest challenges of his life. In early 2015, this 28-year-old husband and father appeared in court on criminal charges of evading military service because he is a conscientious objector. In harmony with international standards, the Gwangju District Court declared him not guilty. This decision was exceptional in South Korea, where for decades thousands of conscientious objectors have been convicted and imprisoned. However, the appeal court overturned Mr. Kim’s verdict and sentenced him to 18 months of imprisonment. His further appeal is now pending with South Korea’s Supreme Court.

In recent years, there has been a rising tide of disagreement within South Korea over its refusal to recognize conscientious objection. Judges who have courageously decided to uphold international standards on this issue have been overruled on appeal.

On May 12, 2015, when Judge Chang-seok Choi of the Gwangju District Court acquitted Mr. Kim of evading military service, he reasoned that Mr. Kim was not ignoring national duty. Rather, he recognized that Mr. Kim, who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a deeply religious man whose moral convictions do not allow him to serve in the military. The judge noted that Mr. Kim was willing to perform alternative civilian service that is separate from the military. a

In his ruling, Judge Choi further reasoned that Mr. Kim was exercising his freedom of conscience in refusing military service and that “freedom of conscience should by all means be protected.” Courageously, Judge Choi respected Mr. Kim’s inherent moral judgment. His ruling was contrary to his country’s established case law but consistent with international standards for conscientious objectors.

In five separate decisions involving over 500 complaints, the UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR) has condemned South Korea for punishing conscientious objectors. In a recent decision, the CCPR concluded that imprisoning them amounted to arbitrary detention under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). b The CCPR and other international bodies have urged South Korea to adopt legislation providing alternative civilian service for conscientious objectors. Although in 1990 South Korea voluntarily submitted to the ICCPR and its First Optional Protocol, it has refused to take further steps to implement these decisions.

The prosecutor petitioned the appeal court to overturn Mr. Kim’s acquittal, arguing that his conscientious objection to military service threatens national security. c On November 26, 2015, the appeal court reversed the trial court’s not-guilty verdict and sentenced Mr. Kim to 18 months of imprisonment for allegedly evading military service.

Although the appeal court acknowledged the CCPR rulings, it held that the authority of South Korea courts superseded international law in this case. Mr. Kim immediately appealed to the Supreme Court and submitted an urgent complaint to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. d He is waiting for the outcome of both of these decisions.

The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court have consistently refused to recognize the rights of conscientious objectors. In 2004 and again in 2011, the Constitutional Court found that the Military Service Law was constitutional. The Constitutional Court is now reviewing the constitutionality of the Military Service Law for the third time and is expected to render its decision soon.

If the Supreme Court rejects Mr. Kim’s appeal, he faces immediate imprisonment. He is distressed knowing that his 18-month imprisonment will cripple his family emotionally and financially. His wife will be the sole provider and caretaker for their two young children. After his release from prison, his criminal record will make finding employment considerably more difficult.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are grateful that governments around the world have adopted the international standard to recognize the right of conscientious objectors. Along with Seon-hyeok Kim, Jehovah’s Witnesses in South Korea look to the courts for a resolution to this issue. Will the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court abide by the international standards they have willingly submitted to? Will South Korea respect conscientious objection as a fundamental right of its citizens?