CCPR/C/117/D/2219/2012 2.5 The author was held in custody for 32 days at the DZK-7 detention facility in Dashoguz. On 8 January 2010, he was transferred to the LBK-12 prison located near the town of Seydi in the Lebap region in the Turkmen desert. While in detention, as a Jehovah’s Witness, the author was singled out for harsh treatment. Immediately upon his arrival at the LBK-12 prison, he was placed in quarantine and kept there for 10 days. On four separate occasions, he was confined in a punishment cell for periods of two to three days owing to the animosity of the prison administration towards his religious beliefs. On one occasion, he was isolated for a month in a so-called “control unit”, a type of punishment cell. One day during his isolation, four masked officers from the Ashgabad special police forces entered the punishment cell and severely beat the author. 2.6 The author was released from prison on 7 December 2011, after serving his sentence. One month later, he was again called up for military service. He refused, again explaining to representatives of the Military Commissariat that his religious conscience did not permit him to perform military service. On 1 May 2012, he was again convicted by Dashoguz City Court under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code to the maximum sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. 2 The author was considered a repeat offender and was imprisoned in a strict regime prison. At the time of the submission of his complaint to the Committee, the author was imprisoned in the strict regime prison LBK-11 in Seydi, where the conditions were worse than those he had experienced during his first prison term. 2.7 On 14 June 2012, Dashoguz Regional Court dismissed the author’s appeal. The author filed a supervisory appeal before the Supreme Court of Turkmenistan even though, according to the jurisprudence of the Committee, such an appeal is a purely discretionary remedy that does not need to be pursued in order to exhaust domestic remedies.3 On 13 July 2012, the Court dismissed the author’s appeal. 2.8 As to the alleged violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the author maintains that there was no effective domestic remedy available to complain about the “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” he suffered while in detention and in prison. He refers to the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on the initial report of Turkmenistan (CAT/C/TKM/CO/1), in which the Committee expressed concern about the lack of an independent and effective complaint mechanism in the State party for receiving and conducting impartial and full investigations into allegations of torture, in particular of convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees (para. 11 (a)). 2.9 As to the alleged violation of article 14 (7) of the Covenant, the author submits 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 2 3 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. At the same time, articles 12 and 21 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan guarantee freedom of religion and conscience and stipulate that that right is subject to limitation only if it violates morality, law or public order or endangers national security. See, for example, communication No. 1100/2002, Bandajevsky v. Belarus, Views adopted on 28 March 2006, para. 10.13. See also European Court of Human Rights, Kolesnik v. Russia (application No. 26876/08), judgment of 17 June 2010, paras. 54-58, 68, 69 and 73), in which the Court indicated that appeals to the domestic courts in Turkmenistan are a pointless exercise. The author notes that Turkmenistan has repeatedly been requested by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Committee against Torture, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other international bodies to stop prosecuting conscientious objectors. The State party, however, continues to prosecute and imprison conscientious objectors. 3