CCPR/C/117/D/2224/2012 when he was in LBK-11, and was not allowed to associate freely with his fellow believers who were in the same prison. He submits that he has twice been convicted and imprisoned for his refusal to accept military service, which is “based on the same constant resolve grounded in reasons of conscience”. 2.7 Specifically, as concerns the alleged violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the author states that filing a complaint with the prison administration or other State agencies for serious acts of mistreatment would only serve to expose the applicants to harsh retaliation and further physical abuse. He maintains that there was no effective domestic remedy available to him to complain about the “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” suffered while in detention and in prison. He refers to the concluding observations on Turkmenistan by the Committee against Torture, in which that Committee noted the lack of an independent and effective complaint mechanism in the State party for receiving torture allegations and conducting impartial and comprehensive investigations, particularly when the allegations were submitted by prisoners and pretrial detainees.4 2.8 As regards the alleged violation of article 14 (7) of the Covenant, and invoking similar argumentation to that used in Navruz Nasyrlayev v. Turkmenistan, the author states that article 18 (4) of the Military Service and Military Duty Act expressly permits the repeated prosecution and imprisonment of conscientious objectors to military service. As a result, no domestic remedy was available for him to be able to obtain redress against his repeated prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for being a conscientious objector to military service. Moreover, on 17 January 2013, Dashoguz Regional Court dismissed the author’s appeal against the 24 December 2012 district court judgment in regard to his second conviction. 2.9 In relation to the alleged violation of his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant, the author submits that the national courts — trial courts, appeal courts and the Supreme Court — have never ruled in favour of a conscientious objector to military service. 5 These facts, together with the repeated rejection of international appeals to provide for alternative civilian service, which is compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, and to release imprisoned conscientious objectors, confirm that there is no domestic remedy available in Turkmenistan for conscientious objectors to military service to challenge their criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. The author thus maintains that he had exhausted the available domestic remedies concerning the alleged violation of article 18 (1) of the Covenant, prior to submitting his communication to the Committee. 2.10 The author has not submitted his communication to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 4 5 4 See CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 11. It is also argued in the other communications relating to conscientious objectors and Turkmenistan (e.g. communication No. 2222/2012, Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, paras. 2.7 and 6.3), that the national courts of Turkmenistan have never ruled in favour of a conscientious objector to military service. This is confirmed by the cases of six other authors (Navruz Nasyrlayev, Zafar Abdullayev, Matkarim Aminov, Mahmud Hydaybergenov, Shadurdy Uchetov and Akmurat Yegendurdyyev), in which all appeals filed at all levels of court were rejected.