CCPR/C/117/D/2227/2012 an open plastic bucket, and nowhere to wash his hands. The author claims that while he was in the punishment cell he was beaten by officers of the Special Police Forces, who tried to force him to renounce to his faith. He also claims that he was forced to work although he was exhausted and that he was denied any contact with other Jehovah’s Witnesses detained in the same colony. 2.5 On 29 January 2011, the author completed his sentence and was released. He was requested to report to the police department for six months.2 He went to the police department twice, but stopped when he learned that article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code, for which he had been sentenced, did not contain a provision on probation. At the time of submitting his communication, the author was facing the prospect of being called up again for military service and of being imprisoned as a conscientious objector. 2.6 The author alleges that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment while detained. He states that filing a complaint with the prison administration or other State agency for serious acts of mistreatment would only serve to expose him to harsh retaliation and further physical abuse. He maintains that there is no effective domestic remedy available for him to complain about the “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” suffered while in detention. He refers to the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on Turkmenistan, 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 of prisoners and pretrial detainees (see CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 11). 2.7 In relation to the alleged violation of his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant, the author submits that the national courts tasked with conducting trials and considering appeals and the Supreme Court have never ruled in favour of a conscientious objector to military service.3 These facts — together with the Government’s repeated rejection of international appeals to provide alternatives to military service that would be compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection and to release imprisoned conscientious objectors — confirm that no domestic remedy is available in Turkmenistan for conscientious objectors to military service to challenge their criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. The author therefore maintains that prior to submitting his communication to the Committee he had exhausted all available domestic remedies concerning the alleged violation of article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 2.8 The author has not submitted his communication to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his imprisonment on account of his religious beliefs in itself constituted inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.2 He also claims a violation of article 7 of the Covenant on account of the treatment he received while in detention, which amounted to torture and ill-treatment (see paras. 2.4 and 2.6 above), and of the conditions of imprisonment at LBK-12 prison. He refers to the 2 3 The author did not indicate how often he had to report to the police department. In other communications by conscientious objectors involving Turkmenistan (e.g. communication No. 2222/2012), it is argued that the national courts of Turkmenistan have never ruled in favour of a conscientious objector to military service. In the cases of six other authors (Navruz Nasyrlayev, Zafar Abdullayev, Matkarim Aminov, Mahmud Hydaybergenov, Shadurdy Uchetov and Dovran Bahramovich Matyakubov), all appeals filed were rejected, confirming the argument. 3