CCPR/C/115/D/2222/2012 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. 11 7.6 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 prohibits the use of arms, is incompatible with article 18 (1) of the Covenant.12 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 Military Duty 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.13 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4), of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7, 10 (1) and 18 (1) of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to expunge the author’s criminal record and to provide him with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to avoid similar violations of the Covenant in the future, which includes the adoption of legislative measures guaranteeing the right to conscientious objection. 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee’s Views. 11 12 13 See communication Nos. 1642-1741/2007, Min-Kyu Jeong et al. v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 7.3; 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 v. Turkey, paras. 10.4 and 10.5; 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. 7