CCPR/C/117/D/2224/2012 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee 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.15 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, 14 (7) and 18 (1) of the Covenant, and that he considers that he has exhausted the available domestic remedies with the decisions of Boldumsaz District Court and Dashoguz Regional Court in regard to his first and second convictions and sentences for being a conscientious objector. The Committee also 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 further notes that the State party has not contested the author’s argumentation concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 6.4 The Committee considers that the author’s claims, raising issues under articles 7, 10, 14 (7) and 18 (1) of the Covenant, are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, after his conviction, he was placed in the DZK-7 detention facility in Dashoguz for 71 days, and that he was placed in solitary confinement for 10 days immediately upon his arrival at the LBK-12 prison, where as a Jehovah’s Witness he was singled out for harsh treatment. The Committee also notes that after the trial of 24 December 2012, the author was held for approximately 15 days in the DZ-D/7 temporary detention centre in Dashoguz, where officers of the sixth police department of Dashoguz reportedly beat him for three days in an attempt to get him to renounce his faith. The author felt humiliated on account of his convictions. In addition, the Committee notes the author’s allegations regarding the lack of adequate mechanisms for investigation of claims of torture in Turkmenistan, and recalls that complaints of illtreatment must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities. 16 The State party has not refuted these allegations, nor has it provided any information in this respect. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts as presented reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee further notes the author’s claims concerning the deplorable conditions at the LBK-12 prison. He claimed, for example, that in the cells under the general prison regime, he endured harsh climatic conditions due to exposure to the hot summer and the cold winter. He also claimed that the prison was overcrowded and that 15 16 8 See, for example, communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.