CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012 10. 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), 14 (7) and 18 (1) of the Covenant. 11. 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 obligated, inter alia, to impartially, effectively and thoroughly investigate the author’s claims falling under article 7 of the Covenant, to prosecute any person(s) found to be responsible, 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. In this connection, the Committee reiterates that the State party should revise its legislation in accordance with its obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, in particular the Military Service and Military Duty Act, as amended on 25 September 2010, with a view to guaranteeing effectively the right to conscientious objection under article 18 (1) of the Covenant.23 12. 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 or not 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 a violation has been established, 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. 23 See communications No. 2019/2010, Poplavny v. Belarus, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 10; and No. 1992/2010, Sudalenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 27 March 2015, para. 10. 9