CCPR/C/117/D/2225/2012
therefore appealing his conviction would be futile and totally ineffective. 5 He thus
maintains that he had exhausted “all reasonable domestic remedies” concerning the alleged
violation of articles 7 and 18 (1) of the Covenant prior to filing his communication to the
Committee.
2.5
In his additional submission of 27 May 2016, the author informed the Committee
that he had again been prosecuted and convicted under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code
by Berkararlyk District Court in the city of Ashgabat, which had sentenced him to two
years of “correctional labour” on 3 March 2015 (see paras. 6.1 and 6.2 below).
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that his prosecution and conviction on the ground of his genuinely
held religious beliefs expressed in his conscientious objection to military service in itself
constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant.
3.2
The author also claims that his prosecution and conviction for refusing to perform
compulsory military service owing to his religious beliefs and conscientious objection have
violated his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 6 He notes that he repeatedly
informed the Turkmen authorities that he was willing to fulfil his civic duty by performing
genuine alternative service; however, the State party’s legislation does not provide for the
possibility of performing alternative service.
3.3
The author requests that the Committee direct the State party to: (a) acquit him of
the charges under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and to expunge his criminal record;
(b) provide him with appropriate compensation for the non-pecuniary damages suffered as
a result of his conviction; and (c) provide him with appropriate monetary compensation for
the legal expenses incurred in submitting his communication to the Committee.
3.4
In his additional submission of 27 May 2016, the author claimed that his second
prosecution and conviction under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code by Berkararlyk
District Court on 3 March 2015 had violated his right under article 14 (7) of the Covenant
not to be tried and punished twice for his conscientious objection to compulsory military
service.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.
On 17 March 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and
the merits. The State party informs the Committee that the author’s case was carefully
considered by the relevant law enforcement bodies of Turkmenistan and no reason was
found to appeal the court’s decision. The criminal offence committed by the author was
determined accurately according to the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan. Under article 41 of
the Constitution, protecting Turkmenistan is the sacred duty of every citizen and general
conscription is compulsory for male citizens. The author did not meet the criteria of persons
eligible to be exempted from military service, as provided for under article 18 of the
Military Service and Military Duty Act. 7
5
6
7
The author refers to the European Court of Human Rights, Kolesnik v. Russia (application No.
26876/08), judgment of 17 June 2010, paras. 54-58, 68, 69 and 73, and the Committee against Torture,
concluding observations on the initial report of Turkmenistan (CAT/C/TKM/CO/1), para. 10.
See, for example, communications Nos. 1853/2008 and 1854/2008, Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey,
Views adopted on 29 March 2012, paras. 10.4 and 10.5.
Article 18 of the Military Service and Military Duty Act, as amended on 25 September 2010,
stipulates that the following citizens shall be exempted from military service: (1) those who have been
declared unfit for military service for health reasons; (2) those who have performed military service;
(3) those who have performed military or another form of service in the armed forces of another State
3