CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012 treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant while in detention,10 as the State party does not provide any response to his detailed allegations regarding the inhuman and degrading treatment he suffered.11 5.2 The author concludes that his repeated prosecution, conviction and imprisonment violated his rights under articles 7, 14 (7) and 18 (1) of the Covenant. He reiterates his request for remedies to be provided by the State party. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 On 23 December 2013 and 17 March 2014, the State party reiterated its observations regarding the admissibility and the merits of the communication. 6.2 In addition, the State party indicated on 17 March 2014 that the author’s case had been carefully considered by the relevant law enforcement bodies and no reason had been found to appeal the court’s decision, as the author had committed a criminal act punishable by the Criminal Code. Additional observations by the author 7.1 On 14 May 2014, the author reiterated that the State party had not contested any of the facts set out in his communication. The only attempted justification raised by the State party was its assertion that the author was convicted and imprisoned as a conscientious objector to military service because he “did not qualify” for an exemption from military service under article 18 of the Military Service and Military Duty Act. According to the author, the State party’s submission shows total disregard for its commitments under article 18 of the Covenant and for the Committee’s jurisprudence, which uphold the right to conscientious objection to military service. Furthermore, the State party did not contest the author’s allegations that he had suffered — contrary to article 7 of the Covenant — inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of law enforcement officers and prison officers. The author concludes once again that his prosecutions, convictions and imprisonment violated his rights under articles 7, 14 (7) and 18 (1) of the Covenant, and reaffirms his request for remedies to be provided by the State party. 7.2 On 26 January 2015, the author provided further information that on 22 October 2014, the President of Turkmenistan amnestied eight imprisoned Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the author, who was released after having served twenty-one and a half months of his 24-month prison term that had resulted from his second conviction under article 219 of the Criminal Code.12 The author indicated that although he welcomed this development, he understood that the amnesty did not exonerate him of the charges, did not expunge his criminal record and did not offer any type of rehabilitation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10 11 12 See paras. 2.4 and 2.6 above. The author refers to Umarova v. Uzbekistan, in which the Committee considered that the burden of proof in regard to torture and ill-treatment could not rest on the author alone and that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations (communication No. 1449/2006, Views adopted on 19 October 2010, para. 8.3). No information was provided on the date of the release. 5