CCPR/C/115/D/2223/2012 specifically, this part of the communication also appears to raise issues under article 10 of the Covenant. 3.3 The author also claims that his criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment because of his conscientious objection to military service have violated his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. He notes that he repeatedly informed the competent authorities that he was willing to fulfil his civic duties by performing genuine alternative service; however, the State party’s legislation does not provide for the possibility of performing alternative service. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4. In a note verbale dated 17 March 2014, the State party reported that the author’s case had been carefully considered by the relevant law enforcement bodies of Turkmenistan and that no reason had been found to appeal the court decision. The criminal offence committed by the author had been determined accurately according to the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan. The State party further noted that under article 41 of the Constitution, the protection of Turkmenistan was the sacred duty of every citizen and that the performance of military service was compulsory for male citizens. In addition, the author had not met the criteria of persons eligible for exemption from military service as provided for under article 18 of the Law on Military Conscription and Military Service. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 14 May 2014, the author noted that the State party did not disagree with any facts set out in the communication. The only justification the State party provided was that he had been convicted and imprisoned as a conscientious objector to military service because he did not qualify for an exemption under article 18 of the Law on Conscription and Military Service. That demonstrated the State party’s total disregard for its commitments under article 18 of the Covenant and the Committee’s jurisprudence, which upheld the right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service. Furthermore, the State party did not contest the author’s allegation that he had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of law enforcement and penitentiary officials, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 5.2 The author reiterates his claims that his prosecution, conviction and imprisonment violated his rights under articles 7 and article 18 (1) of the Covenant. He requests the Committee to invite the State party (a) to acquit him of the charges under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and to expunge his criminal record; (b) to provide him with appropriate monetary compensation for the non-pecuniary damages suffered; and (c) to provide him with appropriate monetary compensation for the legal expenses he incurred before the Committee. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 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 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 4