CCPR/C/117/D/2227/2012 consideration of the State party’s initial report submitted under article 40 of the Covenant, it had expressed its concern that the Law on Military Duty and Military Service, as amended on 25 September 2010, did not recognize a person’s right to exercise conscientious objection to military service and did not provide for any alternative military service, and recommended that the State party, inter alia, take all measures necessary to review its legislation with a view to providing for alternative service (see CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 16). Accordingly, the Committee finds that, by prosecuting and convicting the author for refusing to perform compulsory military service owing to his religious beliefs and conscientious objection, the State party has violated his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7, 10 (1) and 18 (1) of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is also obligated, inter alia, to impartially, effectively and thoroughly investigate the author’s claims of violations of article 7; to prosecute any person or persons found to be responsible of committing those violations; to expunge the author’s criminal record; and to provide him with adequate compensation. The State party is under an obligation to avoid similar violations of the Covenant in the future. In that connection, the Committee reiterates that the State party should revise its legislation in accordance with its obligation under article 2 (2), in particular the Law on Military Duty and Military Service, as amended on 25 September 2010, with a view to ensuring the effective guarantee of the right to conscientious objection under article 18 (1) of the Covenant.15 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee’s Views. 15 8 para. 10.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.8; Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; and Japparow v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7. See communications No. 2019/2010, Poplavny v. Belarus, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 10; and No. 1992/2010, Sudalenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 27 March 2015, para. 10.