CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012 for several days he was obliged to sleep on the bare concrete floor with no clothes on. The author also claimed that the prison was overcrowded and that prisoners with tuberculosis and skin diseases were kept together with healthy inmates, putting him at a high risk of contracting tuberculosis and other infections. The Committee notes that these allegations were not contested by the State party and that they are consistent with the findings of the Committee against Torture in its most recent concluding observations with regard to the State party. 15 The Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; they must be treated in accordance with, inter alia, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.16 In the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee finds that confining the author in such conditions constitutes a violation of his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person under article 10 (1) of the Covenant.17 9.4 The Committee also notes the author’s claim under article 14 (7) of the Covenant that he has been convicted and punished twice for his objection to performing compulsory military service, which is “based on the same constant resolve grounded in reasons of conscience”. The Committee further notes that, on 29 December 2010, Dashoguz City Court convicted and sentenced the author to 18 months of imprisonment, under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code, for his refusal to perform compulsory military service, and that he was then convicted again by the same court under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code on 8 January 2013 and sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. The Committee notes that these claims were not refuted by the State party. 9.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, wherein, inter alia, it stated that article 14 (7) of the Covenant provides that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence of which they have already been finally convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country. Furthermore, repeated punishment of conscientious objectors for not obeying 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.18 The Committee notes that in the present case, the author has been tried and punished twice, with lengthy prison sentences, under the same provision of the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan on account of the fact that, as a Jehovah’s Witness, he objected to, and refused to perform, compulsory military service. In the circumstances of the present case, and in the absence of contrary information from the State party, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under article 14 (7) of the Covenant have been violated. 9.6 The Committee also notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant have been violated, due to the absence in the State party of an alternative to the compulsory military service, as a result of which his refusal to perform military service on account of his religious conscience led to his criminal prosecution and subsequent 15 16 17 18 See CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 19. See, for example, communications No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 6.4; and No. 2218/2012, Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2015, para. 7.3. See, for example, communications No. 1530/2006, Bozbey v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 27 October 2010, para. 7.3; No. 2221/2012, Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, para. 7.3; No. 2222/2012, Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, para. 7.3; and No. 2223/2012, Japparow v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, para. 7.3. See the Committee’s general comment No. 32, paras. 54 and 55. 7