CCPR/C/125/D/2316/2013 entitles any individual to an exemption from compulsory military service if such service cannot be reconciled with that individual’s religion or beliefs. The right must not be impaired by coercion. A State may, if it wishes, compel the objector to undertake a civilian alternative to military service, outside the military sphere and not under military command. The alternative service must not be of a punitive nature. It must be a real service to the community and compatible with respect for human rights. 10 6.4 In the present case, the Committee notes that it is uncontested that the author’s refusal to perform compulsory military service derives from his religious beliefs. The Committee recalls that repression of the refusal to be drafted for compulsory military service, exercised against persons whose conscience or religion prohibits the use of arms, is incompatible with article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 11 It also recalls that, during the consideration of the State party’s second periodic report, in March 2017, the Committee stated that it remained concerned about the State party’s continued failure to recognize the right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service and the repeated prosecution and imprisonment of Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to perform compulsory military service (see CCPR/C/TKM/CO/2, paras. 40–41). The Committee notes that it has dealt with similar cases in respect of the same laws and practices of the State party in a number of earlier communications. 12 In line with those precedents, the Committee concludes that, in the present case, the State party has violated the author’s rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 7. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it discloses a violation of the author’s rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 8. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to take appropriate steps to expunge the author’s criminal record and to provide him with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. In this connection, the Committee reiterates that, in accordance with its obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, the State party should review its legislation with a view to ensuring the effective guarantee of the right to conscientious objection under article 18 (1) of the Covenant, for instance, by providing the possibility of alternative service of a civilian nature. 9. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State party. 10 11 12 See Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/101/D/1642-1741/2007), para. 7.3; Jongnam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7; Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.5; Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.5; Japparow v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; Nurjanov v. Turkmenistan, para. 9.3; and Uchetov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6. See Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Jong-nam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.5; Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, paras. 10.4–10.5; Young-kwan Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.8; Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.6; Japparow v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7; Nurjanov v. Turkmenistan, para. 9.4; and Uchetov v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7. See, for example, Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan; Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan; Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan; Japparow v. Turkmenistan; Nurjanov v. Turkmenistan; Uchetov v. Turkmenistan; and Nasyrlayev v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/117/D/2219/2012). 5