CCPR/C/117/D/2225/2012 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 14 May 2014, the author noted that in its submission on admissibility and the merits, the State party did not disagree with any of the facts set out in the communication. The only attempted justification raised by the State party was its assertion that the author had been convicted 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 the Committee’s jurisprudence, which upholds the right to conscientious objection to military service. Furthermore, the State party did not contest the author’s allegations that he had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 5.2 The author requests that the Committee conclude that his prosecution and conviction violated his rights under articles 7 and 18 (1) of the Covenant. Author’s additional submissions 6.1 On 27 May 2016, the author informed the Committee that he had again been prosecuted and convicted under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code by Berkararlyk District Court in the city of Ashgabat, which had sentenced him to two years of “correctional labour” on 3 March 2015. He had not been imprisoned and had instead been ordered to pay 20 per cent of his salary to the State budget for the term of his imprisonment, which amounted to 107 manats (approximately US$ 30.50) a month. The author had not appealed that decision because the Turkmen courts have rejected all appeals filed by conscientious objectors to military service. Furthermore, he did not want to risk filing an appeal in which the appeal court might substitute his sentence of “correctional labour” with imprisonment. 6.2 The author requests that the Committee find that his second criminal prosecution and conviction violated his right under article 14 (7) of the Covenant not to be tried and punished twice for refusing to perform military service. State party’s additional submissions 7.1 On 1 July 2016, the State party submitted that the author’s additional submission of 27 May 2016 had been examined by the Supreme Court in the exercise of supervisory powers. On the facts, it recalls that the author’s conviction by Berkararlyk District Court in the city of Ashgabat on 3 March 2015 was not reviewed in cassation proceedings. With reference to the judgment, the State party submits that the author was called up by Berkararlyk District Military Commissariat to perform his compulsory military service in the autumn of 2014. On 22 December 2014, he was declared fit for non-combatant military service. He evaded military service in violation of article 41 of the Constitution, without any of the legal grounds for exemption from military service listed in article 8 (2) of the Military Service and Military Duty Act. In addition to the author’s own admission of guilt during the court hearing, his guilt under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code was also established on the basis of witness statements, the author’s written refusal to perform in accordance with international agreements entered into by Turkmenistan; (4) those who have been convicted twice of committing a minor crime or convicted of a crime of medium gravity, a grave crime or an especially grave crime; (5) citizens with an academic degree, approved in accordance with the legislation of Turkmenistan; (6) sons or brothers of those who died as a result of carrying out military duties during military service or military training; and (7) sons or brothers of those who, as a result of a disease contracted as a consequence of a wound or as a result of injury or contusion, have died within one year from the day of discharge from military service (after completion of military training) or of those who, as a result of performing military service, have become disabled during military service or military training. 4