CCPR/C/115/D/2221/2012 service, exercised against persons whose conscience or religion prohibit the use of arms, is incompatible with article 18 (1) of the Covenant.21 It also recalls that during the consideration of the State party’s initial report under article 40 of the Covenant, it had expressed its concern that the Law on Military Duty and Military Service, 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. 22 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 also obligated, inter alia, to expunge the author’s criminal record and to provide him with adequate compensation. The State party is under an obligation to avoid similar violations of the Covenant in the future, which includes the adoption of legislative measures guaranteeing the right to conscientious objection. 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 ithas 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 Committee’s Views. 21 22 8 See Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Jong-nam Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.5; Young-kwan Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, para. 10.4; Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.8. See CPR/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 16.