CCPR/C/125/D/2316/2013 the Committee against Torture,4 the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights 5 and the report of the Turkmenistan Independent Lawyers Association of February 2010. 6 These documents indicate that the practice of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in the State party is widespread. They also highlight the serious risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and the fact that the LBK-12 prison is located in a desert where extreme temperatures are reached. The prison is overcrowded and prisoners with contagious diseases are kept together with healthy inmates. 3.2 The author claims that his prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for refusing to perform compulsory military service owing to his religious beliefs and conscientious objection have violated his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 7 He notes that he informed the Turkmen authorities that he was willing to fulfil his civil duty by performing genuine alternative service, but that the State party’s legislation does not provide for such an alternative. 3.3 The author requests that the Committee direct the State party to: (a) acquit him of the charges under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and expunge his criminal record; and (b) compensate him for moral damages and legal expenses, as required under article 2 (3) of the Covenant. Lack of cooperation by the State party 4. On 11 December 2013, 30 October 2014 and 13 February and 27 August 2015, the Committee requested the State party to provide its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes, however, that no observations have been received to date. It regrets the failure of the State party to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or the merits of the author’s claims. It recalls that, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party concerned is required to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that have been taken by the State to remedy the situation. In 4 5 6 7 CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, paras. 18–19, in which the Committee expressed its concern, inter alia, at ongoing physical abuse and psychological pressure carried out by prison staff, including collective punishment, ill-treatment as a “preventive” measure, the use of solitary confinement and sexual violence and rape by prison officers or inmates, which had reportedly motivated the suicides of several detainees. The Committee also expressed deep concern about the material and hygienic conditions in places of deprivation of liberty, such as inadequate food and health care, severe overcrowding and unnecessary restrictions on family visits. The author cites the European Court of Human Rights, Kolesnik v. Russian Federation (application No. 26876/08), judgment of 17 June 2010, paras. 68–69 and 72, in which the Court concluded that an extradition order to Turkmenistan for criminal prosecution subjected the applicant in that case to a “serious risk” of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The following factors were taken into account: credible and consistent reports from various reputable sources of widespread torture, beatings and use of force against criminal suspects by the Turkmen law enforcement authorities and very poor conditions of detention. In its report of February 2010 (pp. 9–10), the Turkmenistan Independent Lawyers Association described the LBK-12 prison, popularly referred to as Shagal, as the largest in Turkmenistan in size and prison population, designed to accommodate up to 2,100 inmates. At the time of the report, it housed 5,700 detainees. Despite the minimum security conditions for first offenders, prison conditions were very tough. The colony was located in the lifeless desert where temperatures reached minus 20°C in winter and 50°C in summer. Owing to the harsh climatic conditions, overcrowding, the fact that prisoners diagnosed with tuberculosis and skin diseases were kept together with healthy inmates and scarce supplies of food, medication and personal hygiene products, the institution reported a mortality rate of 5.2 per cent, the highest among the country’s penitentiary facilities. As in other penitentiary facilities in Turkmenistan, physical abuse was used against inmates by the colony personnel and other individuals with the consent and often following the instructions of the colony’s administration. Primarily, detainees who were placed in the colony for the first time and were consequently not aware of the unofficial prison rules were subjected to violence. Similar observations on prison conditions in Turkmenistan were made in the country report of the Department of State of the United States of America of 2011 and the report of Amnesty International of February 2012. The author refers to Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey (CCPR/C/104/D/1853-1854/2008), paras. 10.4–10.5. 3