CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012 tuberculosis and skin diseases are kept together with healthy inmates, putting the author at a high risk of contracting tuberculosis and other infections. Although the author does not invoke article 10 of the Covenant specifically, the communication also appears to raise issues under that article. 3.3 The author further claims that his repeated prosecutions, convictions and imprisonment for refusing to perform compulsory military service due to his religious beliefs and his conscientious objection have violated his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 8 He notes that he repeatedly informed the Turkmen authorities that he was willing to fulfil his civic duties by performing genuine alternative service, but that the State party’s legislation does not provide for such an alternative. 3.4 Furthermore, the author claims a violation of his rights under article 14 (7) of the Covenant, as his refusal to perform military service owing to his religious beliefs led to him being convicted twice.9 3.5 The author requests the Committee to direct the State party: (a) to acquit him of the charges under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and to expunge his criminal record; and (b) to provide him with appropriate compensation for the non-pecuniary damage that he suffered as a result of his convictions and imprisonment. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 14 August 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party recalls that on 29 December 2010, the author was convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code for refusing to perform military service, and that he refused a second time in December 2012 to perform such service. Consequently, on 8 January 2013, he was convicted and sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment under the same article of the Criminal Code. The State party informs the Committee that the author never requested any medical assistance during his detention, and that according to national legislation, particularly article 219 of the Criminal Code, the investigation of criminal offences is carried out by the prosecutor’s office. Therefore, contrary to the author’s assertions, police officers had no reason to interrogate him. 4.2 The State party also notes that pursuant to article 41 of the Constitution, “protection of Turkmenistan is the sacred duty of every citizen” and general conscription is compulsory for male citizens. In addition, the State party notes that the author did not meet the criteria of persons to be exempted from military service as provided for under article 18 of the Military Service and Military Duty Act. Therefore, the domestic courts’ decisions fully complied with the State party’s legislation. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 15 October 2013, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. The author notes that the State party does not disagree with any of the facts set out in the communication. In addition, he considers that the State party has failed to provide any evidence rebutting his claim that he was subjected to inhuman or degrading 8 9 4 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. The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, in which it was stated that “repeated punishment of conscientious objectors for not having obeyed a renewed order to serve in the military may amount to punishment for the same crime if such subsequent refusal is based on the same constant resolve grounded in reasons of conscience” (para. 55).