Turkmenistan decided to create its own armed forces in early 1992. However, their first full-scale military exercises did not occur until October 1995. 
Military service lasts for two years - although according to another source the period is 18 months.  
postponement and exemption
No information available.
No information available.
2 Conscientious objection
The right to conscientious objection is not legally recognized and there are no provisions for substitute service. 
There are no known cases of conscripts openly refusing to perform military service.
3 Draft evasion and desertion
Minister of Defence Kopekov stated in 1992 that legislation was being drafted whereby deserters would face "very severe measures, including criminal responsibility". 
No further details about this are known.
Draft evasion is widespread and has increased significantly since Turkmenistan became an independent state. It is caused by the poor conditions and human rights violations within the armed forces. Crime is a serious problem in the armed forces: in 1996 even President Niyazov referred to the problem of arms sales, drug smuggling and even the 'sale' of conscripts in remote garrisons by garrison leaders to local farmers. 
Desertion too is widespread. In 1994 there was said to be a 20 percent desertion rate - which would indicate approximately 2,000 soldiers deserted from the armed forces that year. 
It is not known how far draft evasion and desertion are actually monitored and punished.
6 Annual statistics
The armed forces are 16,000 to 18,000-strong - that is, about 0.40 percent of the population. 
Every year approximately 40,000 men reach conscription age. 
 Shishlevskiy, Valentin 1994. 'The Evolution of Turkmenistan's Armed Forces', in: Asian Defence Journal, 7/1994.  Kangas, Roger D. 1996. 'With an Eye on Russia, Central Asian Militaries Practice Cooperation', in: Transition, 9 August 1996.  Amnesty International 1992. Concerns in Europe November 1991 - April 1992. AI, London.  Institute for Strategic Studies 1997. Military Balance 1997/98. ISS, London.  Amnesty International 1997. Out of the margins, the right to conscientious objections to military service in Europe. AI, London.  UN Commission on Human Rights, 1997. The question of conscientious objection to military service, report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to Commission resolution 1995/83. United Nations, Geneva.
For the first time since 2014, courts in Turkmenistan have again handed down prison terms on young men unable to perform compulsory military service on grounds of religious conscience.
Today is Prisoners for Peace Day, when War Resisters' International and our members remember those imprisoned for their work for peace, and write to them in jail. Please join us!
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has found that the state of Turkmenistan has violated Article 7, Article 10(1), Article 14(7) because he was tried and sentenced twice for his refusal to do military service and Article 18(1).
7.2...The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that, upon arrival at the LBK-12 prison on 3 April 2012, he was subjected to ill-treatment by the prison guards in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. It notes that the author has provided a detailed description of the manner in which he was ill-treated while in isolation, as well as the identity of the organizer of his ill-treatment. The author claimed that he was placed in the colony’s isolation block for 10 days, was beaten, subjected to “goose stepping”, doing push-ups, running, and sitting on the floor with stretched-out legs. The Committee further notes that the author’s detailed allegations and his argumentation regarding the lack of adequate mechanisms for investigation of torture claims in Turkmenistan were not refuted by the State party. The Committee also recalls that complaints of ill-treatment must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities.1 In the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, it concludes that the facts as presented reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant.