CCPR/C/117/D/2226/2012 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. 12 7.7 In the present case, the Committee considers that the author’s refusal to be drafted for compulsory military service derives from his religious beliefs and that the author’s subsequent conviction and sentence amounted to an infringement of his freedom of thought, conscience and religion in breach of article 18 (1) of the Covenant. In this context, 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.13 It also recalls that during the consideration of the State party’s initial report under article 40 of the Covenant, the Committee expressed its concern that the Military Service and Military Duty Act, as amended on 25 September 2010, does not recognize a person’s right to exercise conscientious objection to military service and does not provide for any alternative military service, and recommended that the State party, inter alia, take all necessary measures to review its legislation with a view to providing for alternative service. 14 Accordingly, the Committee finds that, by prosecuting and convicting the author for his refusal to perform compulsory military service due to his religious beliefs and conscientious objection, the State party has violated his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7, 10 (1) and 18 (1) of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with 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 expunge the author’s criminal record and to provide him with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to avoid similar violations of the Covenant in the future. In this connection, the Committee reiterates that the State party should revise its legislation in accordance with its obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, in particular the Military Service and Military Duty Act, as amended on 25 September 2010, with a view to ensuring the effective guarantee of the right to conscientious objection under article 18 (1) of the Covenant.15 10. 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 and 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. 12 13 14 15 See communications Nos. 1642-1741/2007, Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 7.3; Jong-nam 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; and Japparow 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 and 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; and Japparow v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7. See CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 16. See communications No. 2019/2010, Poplavny v. Belarus, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 10; and No. 1992/2010, Sudalenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 27 March 2015, para. 10. 7