CCPR/C/126/D/2302/2013
rights under articles 7 and 18 (1) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force
for the State party on 1 August 1997. The authors are represented by counsel.
The facts as submitted by the authors
2.1
The authors are Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the spring of 2012, the first author was
summoned by the Military Commissariat to enlist for military service. He explained orally
and in writing to representatives of the Military Commissariat that, as a Jehovah’s Witness,
his religious beliefs did not permit him to perform military service. Furthermore, he
provided evidence of medical conditions that would exempt him from service. His claims
were ignored and he was charged under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code of
Turkmenistan, which makes “evading” military service a criminal offence.
2.2
The first author’s trial took place in Azatlykskiy District Court of Ashbagat. He
testified that due to “his professing the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, his reading of the
Holy Scripture, and his personal principles in accordance with these scriptures, he cannot
perform military service”. His statement and the evidence of his medical conditions were
ignored. On 23 July 2012, Azatlykskiy District Court convicted him under article 219 (1) of
the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year and six months of imprisonment.
Immediately after his conviction, his mother attempted to obtain a copy of the verdict from
the judge and prison administration in order to file an appeal. His mother was denied this
document, rendering the author unable to exercise his right to appeal.
2.3
In October 2012, the second author was summoned to perform military service. He
explained orally and in writing to representatives of the Military Commissariat that, as a
Jehovah’s Witness, his religious beliefs did not permit him to perform military service. On
25 December 2012, Dashoguz City Court convicted him under article 219 (1) of the
Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment. He received a copy of the
verdict and was immediately placed in temporary detention, where he was beaten and
humiliated because of his religious convictions every day for 10 days prior to being
transferred to a prison. He did not file a complaint against the prison administration or other
State agencies concerning the beatings he suffered for fear of retaliation and further
physical abuse by the prison authorities. On 17 January 2013, Dashoguz Regional Court
rejected the appeal filed by the second author against his imprisonment.
2.4
On 17 December 2004, the third author was convicted for refusing to perform
military service under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of one year and six months. Four months later he was released on the basis of
a Presidential Decree of Pardon, only to be called up again for military service on 13
December 2012. The third author once again explained orally and in writing to
representatives of the Military Commissariat that, as a Jehovah’s Witness, his religious
beliefs did not permit him to perform military service. On 13 March 2013 Dashoguz City
Court convicted the third author under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and sentenced
him to one year of imprisonment. He received a copy of the verdict and was arrested
immediately. The third author was then beaten and humiliated in detention because of his
religious beliefs. He has not filed a complaint against the prison administration or other
agencies concerning the beatings he suffered for fear of retaliation and further physical
abuse by the prison authorities. On the same day as his conviction, the third author filed an
appeal with Dashoguz Regional Court, which was forwarded to the City Court for
consideration. He has not received a copy of the appeal decision and presumes that it was
rejected, given that he remains in prison.
The complaint
3.1
All three authors claim that their imprisonment has subjected them to inhuman and
degrading treatment as described below, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant.
3.2
The authors claim that their imprisonment for their objection to military service
must of itself be found to be inhuman and degrading treatment. The authors refer to the
decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Bayatyan v. Armenia (application No.
23459/03) and other similar decisions, in which the Court noted great disrespect on the part
2
GE.19-19105