CCPR/C/115/D/2223/2012 compulsory military service, as a result of which his refusal to perform compulsory military service because of his religious beliefs led to his criminal prosecution and subsequent imprisonment. The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the criminal offence committed by the author was determined accurately according to the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan and that pursuant to article 41 of the Constitution, the “protection of Turkmenistan is the sacred duty of every citizen” and that general conscription is compulsory for male citizens. 7.6 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 22 (1993) on freedom of thought, conscience or religion, in which it considers that the fundamental character of the freedoms enshrined in article 18 (1) is reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be derogated from, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence stating that although the Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right of conscientious objection, such a right derives from article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to be involved in the use of lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.7 The right to conscientious objection to military service inheres in the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It entitles any individual to an exemption from compulsory military service if such service cannot be reconciled with that individual’s religion or beliefs. The right must not be impaired by coercion. A State may, if it wishes, compel the objector to undertake a civilian alternative to military service, outside the military sphere and not under military command. The alternative service must not be of a punitive nature. It must be a real service to the community and compatible with respect for human rights. 8 7.7 In the present case, the Committee considers that the author’s refusal to be drafted for compulsory military service derives from his religious beliefs and that the author’s subsequent conviction and sentence amounted to an infringement of his freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in breach of article 18 (1) of the Covenant. In this context, the Committee recalls that repression of the refusal to be drafted for compulsory military service, exercised against persons whose conscience or religion prohibit the use of arms, is incompatible with article 18 (1) of the Covenant.9 It also recalls that during the consideration of the State party’s initial report under article 40 of the Covenant, it expressed its concern that the Law on Conscription and Military Service, as amended on 25 September 2010, does not recognize a person’s right to exercise conscientious objection to military service and does not provide for any alternative military service, and recommended that the State party, inter alia, take all necessary measures to review its legislation with a view to providing for alternative service.10 7 8 9 10 6 See communications No. 1321/2004 and No. 1322/2004, Yeo-Bum Yoon and Myung-Jin Choi v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 3 November 2006, para. 8.3; No. 1853/2008 and No. 1854/2008, Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, Views adopted on 29 March 2012, para. 10.4; No. 1786/2008, Jong-nam Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.3; No. 2179/2012, Young-kwan Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 15 October 2014; and Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7. See communications Nos. 1642-1741/2007, Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 7.3; Atasoy and Sarkut, para. 10.4; Jong-nam Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; and Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.7. See Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; Jong-nam Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.5; Atasoy and Sarkut, para. 10.4; Young-kwan Kim et al. v. the Republic of Korea, para. 7.4; and Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, para. 7.8. See CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 16.