CCPR/C/115/D/2221/2012 Committee against Torture in its most recent concluding observations with regard to the State party.16 The Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; they must be treated in accordance with, inter alia, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. 17 In the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee finds that confining the author in such conditions constitutes a violation of his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person under article 10 (1) of the Covenant.18 7.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant have been violated due to the absence in the State party of an alternative to compulsory military service, as a result of which his refusal to perform military service on account of his religious beliefs led to his criminal prosecution and subsequent imprisonment. The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the criminal offence committed by the author was “determined accurately according to the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan”, that pursuant to article 41 of the Constitution, “protection of Turkmenistan is the sacred duty of every citizen” and that general conscription is compulsory for male citizens. 7.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 22 (1993) on freedom of thought, conscience or religion, in which it considers that the fundamental character of the freedoms enshrined in article 18 (1) is reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be derogated from even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence, according to which although the Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right of conscientious objection, such a right derives from article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to be involved in the use of lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.19 The right to conscientious objection to military service inheres in the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It 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. 20 7.6 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 16 17 18 19 20 CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 19. See, for example, communications No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 6.4 and No. 2218/2012, Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2015, para. 7.3. See, for example, communication No. 1530/2006, Bozbey v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 27 October 2010, para. 7.3 and Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.3. See communications Nos. 1321-1322/2004, Yeo-Bum Yoon and Myung-Jin Choi v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 3 November 2006, para. 8.3; No. 1786/2008, Jong-nam Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.3; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7; and Nos. 1853-1854/2008, Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, Views adopted on 29 March 2012, paras. 10.4 and 10.5. See communications Nos. 1642-1741/2007, Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 7.3; Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, paras. 10.4 and 10.5; Jong-nam Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; and Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7. 7