CCPR/C/115/D/2222/2012 The only attempted justification raised by the State party was its assertion that the author had been convicted and imprisoned as a conscientious objector to military service because he did not qualify for an exemption from military service under article 18 of the Law on Military Duty and Military Service. According to the author, the State party’s submission showed total disregard for its commitments under article 18 of the Covenant and the Committee’s jurisprudence, which upholds the right to conscientious objection to military service. Furthermore, the State party did not contest the author’s allegations that he had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of law enforcement officers and prison officers, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 5.2 The author requests the Committee to conclude that his prosecution, conviction and imprisonment violated his rights under articles 7 and article 18 (1) of the Covenant. He also reiterates his request for remedies to be provided by the State party (see para. 3.4). 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 the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.6 The Committee notes the author’s assertion that there are no effective remedies available to him in the State party with regard to his claims under articles 7, 10 and 18 of the Covenant. The Committee further 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 that it has not contested the author’s argumentation in this regard. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that in the present case 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 and 18 (1) of the Covenant are sufficiently substantiated for 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 communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that, when he was arrested on 4 September 2010, the police slammed his head against a wall and that, after his conviction, during the first 18 days of his detention he was beaten on four occasions. The author also claims that upon arrival at the LBK-12 prison on 8 October 2010, he was again beaten and that beatings continued regularly throughout his imprisonment. The State party has not 6 See, for example, communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3. 5