CCPR/C/117/D/2219/2012 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 8.4 The Committee 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 also notes that, on 7 December 2009, Dashoguz City Court convicted and sentenced the author to 24 months of imprisonment under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code for his refusal to perform compulsory military service, and that on 1 May 2012 he was again convicted by the same court under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. The Committee further notes the author’s submission that article 18 (4) of the Military Service and Military Duty Act permits repeated call-up for military service and stipulates that a person refusing military service is exempt from further call-up only after he has received and served two criminal sentences. It notes in addition that those claims were not refuted by the State party. 8.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, in which it states 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 (paras. 54-55). 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 his 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. 8.6 The Committee 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 compulsory military service, as a result of which his refusal to perform military service because of his religious beliefs led to his criminal prosecution and subsequent imprisonment. The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the criminal offence committed by the author was determined accurately according to the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan, that, pursuant to article 41 of the Constitution, the protection of Turkmenistan is the sacred duty of every citizen and that general conscription is compulsory for male citizens. 16 17 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; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, 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. 9