CCPR/C/115/D/2222/2012 observations of the Committee against Torture concerning Turkmenistan, 4 in which the Committee noted the lack of an independent and effective complaint mechanism in the State party for receiving and conducting impartial and comprehensive investigations into allegations of torture, in particular those made by prisoners and pretrial detainees. 2.9 The author has not submitted his complaint to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his imprisonment because of his religious beliefs in itself constituted inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.2 The author further claims a violation of article 7 of the Covenant because of his illtreatment while in detention and of the conditions of imprisonment at the LBK-12 prison. In this regard, he refers, inter alia, to the report of February 2010 of the Turkmenistan Independent Lawyers Association, which notes that the LBK-12 prison is located in a desert where winter temperatures reach -20° Celsius in winter and 50° in summer. The prison is overcrowded, and prisoners infected with tuberculosis and skin diseases are kept together with healthy inmates. Although the author does not invoke it specifically, the communication also appears to raise issues under article 10 of the Covenant. 3.3 The author also claims that his prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for refusing to perform compulsory military service because of his religious beliefs and conscientious objection have violated his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant.5 He notes that he repeatedly informed the Turkmen authorities that he was willing to fulfil his civic duties by performing genuine alternative service; however, the State party’s legislation does not provide for the possibility of performing alternative service. 3.4 The author requests the Committee to direct the State party (a) to acquit him of the charges under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and to expunge his criminal record; (b) to provide him with appropriate compensation for the non-pecuniary damages suffered as a result of his conviction and imprisonment; and (c) to provide him with appropriate monetary compensation for his legal expenses. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4. In a note verbale dated 17 March 2014, the State party reported, inter alia, 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 decision. According to the State party, the criminal offence committed by the author had been determined accurately according to the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan, and that according to article 41 of the Constitution, protection of Turkmenistan was the sacred duty of every citizen and general conscription was compulsory for male citizens of Turkmenistan. In addition, the author had not met the criteria of persons eligible for exemption from military service as provided for under article 18 of the Law on Military Duty and Military Service. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 14 May 2014, the author noted that in its submission on the admissibility and merits the State party did not disagree with any of the facts set out in the communication. 4 5 4 Ibid., para. 11. See, for example, communication No. 1853/2008 and 1854/2008, Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, Views adopted on 29 March 2012, paras. 10.4 and 10.5.