CCPR/C/117/D/2226/2012 military service. Furthermore, the State party had not contested the author’s allegations that he had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of law enforcement and prison officers, 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. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.7 The Committee notes the author’s assertion that there are no effective remedies available to him in the State party with regard to his claims under articles 7, 10 and 18 (1) of the Covenant.8 The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that the author’s case had been carefully considered by the relevant law enforcement bodies of Turkmenistan and no reason had been found to appeal the court’s decision, and that the State party has not contested the author’s argumentation concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 6.4 The Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 7, 10 and 18 (1) of the Covenant are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he was singled out for harsh treatment, such as placement in the isolation cell for 10 days immediately after his arrival at the LBK12 prison, placement in a punishment cell on three occasions and beatings by officers from the special police forces while he was detained in the “strict control ward”, because of his religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness. The State party has not refuted those allegations, nor provided any information in that respect. In the circumstances, due weight must be 7 8 See, for example, communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3. See communications No. 2221/2012, Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, para. 6.3; No. 2222/2012, Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, para. 6.3; and No. 2223/2012, Japparow v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015, para. 6.3. 5