CCPR/C/113/D/2218/2012 organizer of his ill-treatment. The author claimed that he was placed in the colony’s isolation block for 10 days, was beaten, subjected to “goose stepping”, doing push-ups, running, and sitting on the floor with stretched-out legs. The Committee further notes that the author’s detailed allegations and his argumentation regarding the lack of adequate mechanisms for investigation of torture claims in Turkmenistan were not refuted by the State party. The Committee also recalls that complaints of ill-treatment must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities.2 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, it concludes that the facts as presented reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s detailed claims concerning the deplorable prison conditions at the LBK-12 prison. He claimed, for example, that the isolation block lacked basic hygiene, there were around 40 inmates in one cell, a metal barrel emptied once a day served as a toilet in the cell; and that, during the day, inmates had to sit on the concrete cell floor and that at night-time they were given dirty blankets, insufficient in number (see paras. 3.3 and 5.3 above). The Committee notes that these allegations were not contested by the State party. 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.3 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.4 7.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claim under article 14 (7) of the Covenant that he has been convicted and punished twice for his objection to perform the compulsory military service. The Committee also notes that, on 8 April 2009, the Dashoguz City Court convicted the author under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code for his refusal to perform the compulsory military service, handing down a 24-month conditional sentence, and that he was then again convicted by the same court under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code on 6 March 2012 and sentenced to 24 months of effective imprisonment. The Committee further notes the author’s submission that article 18 (4) of the Law on Conscription and Military Service permits repeated call-up for military service and stipulates that a person refusing military service is exempt from further call-up only after he has received and served two criminal sentences. It notes in addition that these claims were not refuted by the State party. 7.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32, wherein, inter alia, it stated that article 14 (7) of the Covenant provides that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence of which they have already been finally convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country. Furthermore, repeated punishment of conscientious objectors for not obeying a renewed order to serve in the military may amount to punishment for the same crime if such subsequent refusal is based on the same 2 3 4 6 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment. See for example communication No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v.Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 6.4. See for example communication No. 1530/2006, Bozbey v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 27 October 2010, para. 7.3.