CCPR/C/113/D/2218/2012 constant resolve grounded in reasons of conscience.5 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the author has been tried and punished twice under the same provision of the Turkmen Criminal Code on account of the fact that, as a Jehovah’s Witness, he objected to, and refused to perform, his compulsory military service. In the circumstances of the present case, and in the absence of contrary information from the State party, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under article 14 (7) of the Covenant have been violated. 7.6 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant have been violated, owing to the absence in the State of an alternative to compulsory military service. His refusal to perform military service on account of his religious conscience thus 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, “Protection of Turkmenistan is the sacred duty of every citizen” and that general conscription is compulsory for male citizens. 7.7 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 22, in which it considers that the fundamental character of the freedoms enshrined in article 18 1 is reflected in the fact that no derogation from that article may be made, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence to the effect 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 conscience. 6 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. 7 7.8 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 convictions and sentences amounted to an infringement of his freedom of conscience, in breach of article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 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.8 It also recalls that, during the consideration of the State party’s initial report under article 40 of the Covenant, it previously 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 5 6 7 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on article 14: right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 54–55. See communications Nos. 1321/2004 and 1322/2004, Yeo-Bum Yoon and Myung-Jin Choi v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 3 November 2006, para. 8.3; and No. 1786/2008, Jong-nam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.3. See communications Nos. 1642-1741, Min-Kyu Jeong et al v. The Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 7.3; and No. 1786/2008, Jong-nam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea (see footnote 13), para. 7.4. See communications Nos. 1642-1741, Min-Kyu Jeong et al v. The Republic of Korea (see footnote 14), para. 7.4; No. 1786/2008, Jong-nam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea (see footnote 13), para. 7.5; and No. 2179/2012, Young-kwan Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 15 October 2014, para. 7.4. 7