CCPR/C/113/D/2218/2012
allowed defendants to be sentenced twice for the same offence, and notes that the State
party has failed to act on those recommendations.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that his imprisonment on account of his religious beliefs in itself
constituted inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the
Covenant.
3.2
He also claims that he was ill-treated by the prison guards of the LBK-12 prison,
again in violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant.
3.3
The author further claims to be the victim of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant
on account of the conditions at the LBK-12 prison. He refers, inter alia, to the report of
February 2010 of Turkmenistan’s Independent Lawyers Association, in which it is noted
that the LBK-12 prison is situated in a desert with winter temperatures of minus 20 degrees
Celsius and, in summer, heatwaves reaching 50 degrees. The prison is overcrowded and
prisoners infected with tuberculosis and skin diseases are kept together with healthy
inmates (see also para. 5.3 below). Although the author does not specifically invoke article
10 of the Covenant, the communication also appears to raise issues under that article.
3.4
The author furthermore claims a violation of his rights under article 14 (7) of the
Covenant as he was convicted twice for his refusal to accept military service owing to his
religious beliefs. He notes that, under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code, refusing the
call-up for military service is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of two years and
that article 18 (4) of the Law on Conscription and Military Service permits repeated call-up
for military service, stipulating that a person refusing military service is exempt from
further call-up only after he has received and served two criminal sentences.
3.5
The author also claims that his criminal prosecutions, convictions and imprisonment
on account of his conscientious objection to military service have violated his rights under
article 18 (1) of the Covenant. He notes that he repeatedly informed the Turkmen
authorities that he was willing to fulfil his civic duties by performing genuine alternative
service; however the State party’s legislation does not provide for the opportunity to
perform any alternative service.
State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.
By note verbale of 17 March 2014, the State party informed the Committee that,
inter alia, the author’s case has been “carefully considered by the relevant law enforcement
bodies of Turkmenistan and no reason had been found to appeal the court decision”. The
criminal offence committed by the author was “determined accurately according to the
Criminal Code of Turkmenistan”. It further notes that, under article 41 of the Constitution,
“protection of Turkmenistan is the sacred duty of every citizen”. General conscription is
compulsory for male citizens. In addition, the author did not meet the criteria for persons to
be exempted from military service as provided for under article 18 of the Law on Military
Conscription and Military Service.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
On 14 May 2014, the author noted that the State party does not contest the facts as
set out in the communication. The only justification that the State party provides is that he
was convicted and imprisoned as a conscientious objector to military service because he did
not qualify for an exemption under article 18 of the Law on Conscription and Military
Service. This shows the State party’s total disregard for its commitments under article 18 of
the Covenant and the Committee’s jurisprudence upholding the right to conscientious
objection to military service. Furthermore, the State party does not contest the author’s
4