CCPR/C/117/D/2227/2012 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 14 May 2014, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He argues that the State party did not contest any of the facts set out in his communication. The only attempted justification raised by the State party is its assertion that the author was convicted and imprisoned as a conscientious objector to military service because he “did not qualify” for an exemption from military service under article 18 of the State party’s Law on Military Duty and Military Service. The author considers that the State party’s observations show total disregard for its commitments under article 18 of the Covenant and the Committee’s jurisprudence, which upholds the right to conscientious objection to military service. Furthermore, the State party does not contest the author’s allegations that he has suffered inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of law enforcement officers and prison officers, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 7 5.2 The author requests that the Committee conclude that his prosecution, conviction and imprisonment violate his rights under articles 7 and 18 (1) of the Covenant and reiterates his request for remedies (see para. 3.4 above). Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.8 The Committee notes the author’s submission that there are no effective remedies available to him in the State party with regard to his claims under articles 7, 10 and 18 (1) of the Covenant, and that he considers that he has exhausted the available domestic remedies with the decisions of the Boldumsaz District Court and the Dashoguz Regional Court as concerns his conviction and sentence as a conscientious objector. The Committee further notes the State party’s assertion of 17 March 2014 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, and that it has not contested the author’s argumentation concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In 7 8 crime or an especially grave crime; (e) citizens with an academic degree, approved in accordance with the legislation of Turkmenistan; (f) the sons or brothers of those who have died as a result of carrying out military duties during military service or military training; and (g) the sons or brothers of those who, as a result of a disease contracted as a consequence of a wound or as a result of injury or contusion, have died within one year from the day of discharge from military service (after completion of military training) or of those who, as a result of performing military service, have become disabled during military service or military training. See, e.g., communication No. 1449/2006, Umarova v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 19 October 2010, para. 8.3. See, e.g., communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3. 5