CCPR/C/117/D/2226/2012
2.5
After the author’s arrest, he was initially detained for 34 days in a holding cell at the
women’s detention facility in Dashoguz. On 17 August 2009, he was transferred to the
LBK-12 prison located near the town of Seydi and immediately placed in an isolation cell
for 10 days.
2.6
Over the course of the author’s imprisonment, he was placed in a punishment cell
three times, each time for a period of three days. Although the official reason for his
punishments was the alleged violation of prison rules, the author submits that in reality he
was singled out for harsh treatment because of his religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness.
While in the punishment cell, he was made to sleep on the bare concrete floor even in
winter. On one occasion, the author was placed in a so-called “strict control ward” for a
period of one month. The conditions of detention in that ward were the same as in the
punishment cell, except that he was given a bed at 10 p.m. every day and fed three times a
day. One day, seven or eight officers from the special police forces entered the ward
wearing balaclavas. They questioned him about his beliefs and then repeatedly beat him
with their batons, causing him serious head injuries. The prison authorities allowed his
relatives to visit him once a month but they did not allow him visits from friends.
2.7
On 13 July 2011, the author was released from prison, but for the first two months
after his release he was required to report regularly to Dashoguz Police Department. The
author submits that he faces the prospect of being called up again for military service and
being imprisoned as a conscientious objector.3
2.8
The author submits that he has exhausted all reasonable domestic remedies
concerning his claim under article 18 (1) of the Covenant prior to filing his communication
to the Committee. He adds that the courts in Turkmenistan have never ruled in favour of a
conscientious objector to military service and that the justice system in Turkmenistan is
perceived as being ineffective and lacking independence.4 As to the alleged violation of
article 7 of the Covenant, the author maintains that there was no effective domestic remedy
available to him. He refers to the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture
on the initial report of Turkmenistan, in which the Committee expressed concern about the
lack of an independent and effective complaint mechanism in the State party for receiving
and conducting impartial and full investigations into allegations of torture, in particular of
convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees (CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 11 (a)).
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that his imprisonment 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 a violation of article 7 of the Covenant because of his illtreatment while in detention and because of the detention conditions in the LBK-12 prison.
In that regard, he refers, inter alia, to the report of the Turkmenistan Independent Lawyers
Association of February 2010, which noted that the LBK-12 prison was located in a desert
where in winter, temperatures reached minus 20°C and in summer, 50°C. The prison was
3
4
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.
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 concluding
observations of the Committee against Torture on the initial report of Turkmenistan
(CAT/C/TKM/CO/1), para. 10.
3