CCPR/C/117/D/2224/2012
2.4
On 28 June 2012, the author was released from prison. He was required to report
regularly to the Boldumsaz police department. At the time of submitting his
communication, he faced the prospect of again being called up for military service and
again being imprisoned as a conscientious objector.
2.5
The author considers that the 28 December 2010 decision of Boldumsaz District
Court satisfies his obligation to exhaust all reasonable domestic remedies prior to filing the
present communication. He did not appeal his first conviction to the higher courts in
Turkmenistan.2
2.6
In a further submission, dated 1 May 2013, the author indicates that on 3 November
2012 he received a summons from the Military Commissariat to report for military service.
He explained again to the Military Commissariat officials the reasons why he would not
perform military service. He also stated that he now only had 30 per cent sight in his left
eye, and that due to the extra load his right eye sometimes did not see anything. He stated
that his doctor warned him that if he did not do something about the problem, he might go
blind. On 24 December 2012, six months after he had been released from prison, he was
brought to trial again, at Boldumsaz District Court, in the Dashoguz region. He told the
judge that as a Jehovah’s Witness, his religious conscience did not permit him, directly or
indirectly, to bear arms or to learn war. He also told the judge about his eye problem and
emphasized that he was ready to perform alternative civilian service. However, he was
convicted for a second time as a conscientious objector and was sentenced to the maximum
term of 24 months of imprisonment, under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code. He was
considered a repeat offender and was sent to a “strict regime” prison. On 17 January 2013,
Dashoguz Regional Court dismissed the author’s appeal against the first instance judgment.
After the trial, he was held for approximately 15 days in the DZ-D/7 temporary detention
centre located in Dashoguz, where he was subjected to additional mistreatment and threats
by officers of the sixth police department of Dashoguz.3 The author indicated that he was
beaten for three days, that the detention officials tried to force him to renounce his faith,
and that they humiliated him on account of his convictions. On 10 January 2013, the author
was transferred to the LBK-11 strict regime colony in Seydi, where he served his sentence
in conditions considered worse than those of the LBK-12 general regime colony where he
had served his first term of imprisonment. The author claims that he was always monitored
2
3
The author did not appeal to supreme courts in the State party. He submits that, according to the
jurisprudence of the Committee, a supervisory appeal to the Supreme Court is a purely discretionary
remedy that does not need to be pursued in order to exhaust domestic remedies. See, for example,
communication No. 1100/2002, Bandajevsky v. Belarus, Views adopted on 28 March 2006,
para. 10.13. Furthermore, as detailed in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in
Kolesnik v. Russia (application No. 26876/08, judgment of 17 June 2010), at paras. 54-58, 68, 69 and
73, appeals to the domestic courts in Turkmenistan are a pointless exercise. This is confirmed in
communications No. 2219/2012 (Nasyrlayev v. Turkmenistan) and No. 2227/2012 (Yegendurdyyev v.
Turkmenistan), in which appeals by conscientious objectors, to the appeal court and to the Supreme
Court of Turkmenistan, were rejected. The author also considers that this is confirmed by the fact that
Turkmenistan has repeatedly been admonished by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or
belief, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Committee against Torture, the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other international bodies to stop prosecuting
conscientious objectors. However, the State party continues to prosecute and imprison conscientious
objectors. Moreover, the Committee against Torture has stated (see CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 10) that
it is deeply concerned at the ineffective functioning of the justice system, apparently caused in part by
the lack of independence of the prosecution and judiciary — a point that had also been noted by the
Secretary-General in 2006 (see A/61/489, para. 46).
As indicated in the statement by Tazegul Orazmedova, dated 14 February 2013 (annexed to the
further submission).
3