CCPR/C/126/D/2302/2013 of the State party for denying members of minority religious groups the opportunity to serve society in the same way as other citizens. 3.3 The first and the second authors further submit that it is beyond dispute that the conditions of their imprisonment at LBK-12 prison in Seydi, Turkmenistan, have also subjected them to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. The conditions of detention have been described in detail in other communications before the Committee, such as Nasyrlayev v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/117/D/2219/2012). In its concluding observations of 2011, the Committee against Torture stated that it was deeply concerned about numerous and consistent allegations about the widespread practice of torture and illtreatment of detainees in Turkmenistan (CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 6). In a 2010 report, the national Independent Lawyer Association described the conditions in LBK-12 as overcrowded, with scarce supplies of food, medication and personal hygiene products. The report also indicated that physical abuse was used against inmates, who were at a high risk of contracting tuberculosis. That risk has been recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which referred to Turkmen prisons as a “breeding ground for tuberculosis”.2 3.4 The second author adds that every day during his 10-day detention following his trial, he spent time in “temporary quarantine”, where he received terrible treatment, including being beaten up and humiliated for his convictions. 3.5 The third author claims that the conditions of his detention in DZ/D7 detention centre amounted to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The third author’s brother, in a statement dated 21 March 2013 (prepared as part of the communication submitted to the Committee), claims that when he saw the third author on 19 March 2013, it was clear to him that his brother had been treated “horribly” and had been beaten and “humiliated for his convictions”. The third author also knew that his conversation with his brother had been monitored. He told his brother that he would not be sent to prison anytime soon, because the authorities needed to “break” him. 3.6 The third author claims that the State party violated his rights under article 14 (7) by charging him for the same crime for which he had been already convicted. The third author was convicted twice for his refusal to accept military service “based on the same constant resolve grounded in reasons of conscience”. 3.7 All three authors claim that their prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for refusing to perform compulsory military service owing to their religious beliefs and conscientious objection have violated their rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. They note that they have informed the Turkmen authorities of their will to fulfil their civil duty by performing genuine alternative service; however, the State party’s legislation does not provide for such an alternative. 3.8 The authors request that the Committee direct the State party to: (a) acquit them of the charges under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code; and (b) provide them with suitable compensation for the moral damages they suffered as a result of persecution and conviction, and for their legal expenses. 3.9 Regarding the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, the first author claims that he was not able to file an appeal upon his conviction, since the authorities refused to provide him with a copy of his verdict and sentence. The appeal would not have been accepted without such documentation. In any case, the first author claims that an appeal would have been totally ineffective and pointless. The second and third authors were able to file their appeals with Dashoguz Regional Court challenging their convictions based on their religious beliefs under article 18 of the Covenant, which, they consider, satisfies their obligation to exhaust domestic remedies regarding this claim. The second and third authors did not file any complaints regarding their treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, as they feared such complaints would expose them to harsh retaliation and further physical abuse by the prison authorities. Therefore, the authors submit that they have exhausted domestic remedies for all their claims. 2 GE.19-19105 See www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/feature/2008/tb-feature-200308.htm. 3