CCPR/C/117/D/2225/2012
1.1
The author of the communication is Akmurad Nurjanov, a national of Turkmenistan,
born in 1993. He claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 7, 14 (7)
and 18 (1) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Turkmenistan on 1
August 1997. The author is represented by counsel, Shane H. Brady.
1.2
In his initial submission, the author requested that the Committee seek assurances
from the State party that as an interim measure it would not subject him to a second
criminal prosecution1 while his communication was pending before the Committee. On 7
December 2012, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new
communications and interim measures, decided not to accede to that request.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author is a Jehovah’s Witness. He has never been charged with a criminal or
administrative offence other than his criminal conviction as a conscientious objector.
2.2
On 13 April 2011, he was called by Azatlyk District Military Commissariat in the
city of Ashgabat to perform his compulsory military service. In compliance with the
summons, he met with representatives of the Military Commissariat and explained orally
and in writing that as a Jehovah’s Witness, his religious beliefs did not permit him to
perform military service. The author’s case was transmitted to the prosecutor’s office. On
an unspecified date, he was charged under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code 2 for refusing
to perform military service.
2.3
On 13 February 2012, the author was tried before Azatlyk District Court in the city
of Ashgabat. He explained that his religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness did not permit
him to directly or indirectly take up arms or learn warfare, but that he was willing to fulfil
his civil obligations by performing alternative civilian service. 3 Azatlyk District Court
convicted the author under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and handed down a
conditional sentence with one year of probation and weekly monitoring by the police. 4
2.4
The author did not appeal his conviction to a higher court. He submits that the courts
in Turkmenistan have never ruled in favour of a conscientious objector to military service.
Furthermore, the justice system in Turkmenistan is ineffective and lacks independence,
1
2
3
4
2
Article 18 (4) of the Military Service and Military Duty Act permits repeated call-up for military
service and stipulates that a person refusing military service is exempt from further call-up only after
he has received and served two criminal sentences. See communication No. 2218/2012, Abdullayev v.
Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2015.
Article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code provides that evasion of the draft for military service in the
absence of legal grounds for exemption from such service shall be punished with correctional labour
for up to two years or imprisonment for up to two years.
The Military Service and Military Duty Act does not recognize a person’s right to exercise
conscientious objection to military service and does not provide for any alternative military service.
For recommendations received by Turkmenistan in the context of the Act, see, inter alia, the report of
the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief on her mission to Turkmenistan
(A/HRC/10/8/Add.4, para. 68) and the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on
the initial report of Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 16).
The relevant excerpt from the Azatlyk District Court decision of 13 February 2012 indicates that the
Court found Akmurad Nurjanov guilty of committing the crime specified in article 219 (1) of the
Criminal Code, and on that basis deprived him of freedom for two years; it applied article 68 of the
Criminal Code, making that punishment a conditional sentence, and gave him one year of probation;
and it required that during that time, Nurjanov not change his place of residence without permission
from the authorities.