CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018

GE.25-05878 (E) 020725 020725

Human Rights Committee

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the

Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 3127/2018, 

Communication submitted by:

Aleksandr Golubev (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim:

The author

State Party:

Russian Federation

Date of communication:

3 September 2017 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 20 February 2018

Date of adoption of Views:

14 March 2025

Subject matter:

Arbitrary pretrial detention

Procedural issue:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Substantive issues:

Arbitrary detention; conditions of detention

Articles of the Covenant:

7, 9 (1), (3) and (4) and 10 (1)

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2 and 5

1.

The author of the communication is Aleksandr Golubev, a national of the Russian

Federation born in 1970. He claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles

7, 9 (1), (3) and (4) and 10 (1) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for

the State Party on 1 January 1992. The author is not represented by counsel.

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1

The author submits that he was working as the deputy director of a private security

firm when he was arrested on 24 August 2016 in his apartment and was taken to the Moscow

branch of the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He was not

allowed to call his family or his lawyer to inform them of his whereabouts. Before he was

interrogated, he was provided with a State-appointed lawyer, who pressured him to confess

to everything he was charged with, but the author refused. The author was then charged with

large-scale extortion committed by an organized group.

 Adopted by the Committee at its 143rd session (3–28 March 2025).

 The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders,

Mahjoub El Haiba, Carlos Ramón Fernández Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Dalia

Leinarte, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh

Changrok, Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu.

United Nations

CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

3 July 2025

Original: English

CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018

2

GE.25-05878

2.2

On the same day, the author was confronted, in a face-to-face interview, with V.P.,

one of his co-workers at the private security firm, who testified that, in the winter of 2015,

the author had shown V.P. a photograph of an unknown man and told him to lightly beat up

the man when he was returning home from work. The author had allegedly threatened V.P.

with termination of employment if V.P. did not obey his orders. V.P. testified that, the next

day, he had gone to the address he had been given and waited for the man from the photograph.

When V.P. saw the man returning home, he hit him once in the face and ran away.

2.3

On 26 August 2016, Tverskoy District Court authorized the author’s pretrial detention

until 22 October 2016. The author and his lawyers objected to his detention because, except

for the testimony of V.P., which the author rejected, there was no evidence connecting him

to the alleged crime and there were no exceptional circumstances allowing for his detention,

as required by law.1 The author asked the court to release him on bail or to place him under

house arrest, since he had a permanent place of residence in Moscow and a family with three

minor children. However, the court ruled that there was enough evidence connecting the

author to the alleged crime and approved the investigator’s motion for the author’s pretrial

detention.

2.4

On 29 August 2016, the author lodged an appeal against his detention with Moscow

City Court. On 14 September 2016, Moscow City Court confirmed the lower court’s decision

and rejected the author’s appeal.

2.5

On 29 August 2016, one of the police officers who had taken part in the author’s arrest

visited him in his cell and demanded that he confess to the charges and that he testify against

other suspects in the case. If he did not, the police officer threatened to make the author’s

conditions of detention so bad that it would cause harm to his health. The following day, the

author reported this to the investigator; however, no action was taken.

2.6

On 19 November 2016, the author was transferred from pretrial detention facility

No. 4 (SIZO No. 4) to SIZO No. 2, also known as Lefortovo Prison, where he describes the

conditions of detention as inhuman and degrading. According to the author, he was

transferred because he refused to confess to the charges and to cooperate with the

investigation. He was held in a small cell with another detainee for 23 hours per day. The

toilet was in the same room as the beds, had a faulty flushing system and was located opposite

the cell door and in full view of the video camera, which meant that it could be watched by

guards around the clock. This forced him to use the toilet as seldom as possible because he

always felt like someone was watching him. There was no hot running water in the sink, and

the temperature in the cell was very cold in winter. The sanitary conditions in the cell did not

meet hygiene standards, and the prison administration did not allow inmates to receive any

disinfecting or cleaning products sent from outside. There was not enough light in the cell to

read or write, and it was very damp. The paint on the walls and the floor was flaking off and

gave off a very distinct smell, which the author thinks was harmful to his health. There was

no ventilation, and hot showers were allowed only once a week for 15 minutes. There was a

chapel in the prison, but inmates were not allowed to go there.

2.7

The author complained about the conditions of detention every time he was brought

before a judge for his detention to be extended or for an appeal hearing. Each hearing was

also attended by a prosecutor; however, no response was given to the author’s complaints by

either the judges or the prosecutors until 21 August 2017, when the judge of Moscow City

Court, while extending the author’s detention for another 22 days, ruled that the author’s

allegations about his conditions of detention could not be considered sufficient grounds to

replace his pretrial detention with another measure, stating that the examination of the

author’s allegations was beyond the scope of the court hearing.

2.8

On 19 October 2016, as requested by the investigator, Tverskoy District Court

extended the author’s detention until 24 January 2017. On 26 October 2016, the author lodged

an appeal against the District Court’s decision with Moscow City Court. On 23 November

1 In accordance with article 97 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, to hold someone in pretrial

detention, the court needs to have enough grounds to believe that the suspect will flee the

investigation, or may continue his/her criminal activities, or may threaten witnesses, destroy evidence,

or in other ways hinder the criminal case.

CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018

GE.25-05878

3

2016, Moscow City Court upheld the decision of Tverskoy District Court. The author’s

detention was extended by Tverskoy District Court again, on 23 January 2017 and 21 April

2017. The author lodged appeals against both extensions with Moscow City Court, to no

avail.

2.9

On 26 April 2017, while he was being interrogated after charges had been brought

against him, V.P. retracted the testimony that he had made against the author, thus eliminating

the author’s only connection to the alleged victim. In his new testimony, V.P. said that he

had been told by the police to provide false testimony against the author, which he had done,

and that, in return, he would be released from detention. However, since he had also been

placed in pretrial detention, he had decided to tell the truth. Despite the retraction of V.P.’s

testimony, on 14 June 2017, Tverskoy District Court again extended the author’s pretrial

detention until 24 August 2017. The author’s detention was extended by Moscow City Court

two more times during the pretrial investigation, on 21 August 2017 and 13 September 2017,

and twice by Nikulinsky District Court during the author’s trial, on 26 September 2017 and

12 February 2018. When extending the author’s detention, the courts used the same

substantiation despite the change in V.P.’s testimony. In total, the author was held in pretrial

detention for one year and 22 days.

2.10

On 26 March 2018, the Moscow City Prosecutor’s Office submitted a cassation appeal

to Moscow City Court asking to quash the decision of Tverskoy District Court dated 14 June

2017 and that of Moscow City Court dated 21 August 2017, both of which had extended the

period of the author’s and his co-defendants’ pretrial detention. The prosecutor’s office

argued that both courts had been provided with incorrect information by the investigative

authorities when rendering their decisions, such as incorrect initials for some of the

defendants, incorrect licence plate numbers for the car used to commit the crime, the wrong

date for the crime committed by one of the defendants and other descriptive errors. On

18 May 2018, the presidium of Moscow City Court granted the cassation appeal submitted

by the Moscow City Prosecutor’s Office, quashed the two above-mentioned decisions and

ordered both courts to hold new hearings.

2.11

At the time of the submission of his communication, the author was still in pretrial

detention. The author submits that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies with

regard to his claims.

Complaint

3.1

The author claims that his pretrial detention, which lasted for over a year, was arbitrary

and unnecessary, in violation of his rights under article 9 (1), (3) and (4) of the Covenant. He

submits that the only witness linking him to the crime later admitted that he had been coerced

into providing false testimony, and that the investigation did not provide any evidence that

he might flee, interfere with the investigation or commit an offence, as required by law.

According to the author, the courts never seriously considered imposing a less restrictive

preventive measure, such as bail, house arrest or a requirement not to leave the area, and paid

no regard to the author’s individual circumstances.

3.2

The author also claims a violation by the State Party of articles 7 and 10 (1) of the

Covenant owing to the degrading treatment he suffered while in detention in Lefortovo Prison.

According to the author, he was subjected to unbearable conditions of detention only to make

him confess to a crime that he had not committed.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

In a note verbale dated 2 October 2018, the State Party submitted its observations on

the admissibility and merits of the communication.

4.2

The State Party submits that, on 26 December 2017, during the trial at Nikulinsky

District Court, the author complained to the court that, during the pretrial investigation,

several officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Federal Security Service threatened

him with physical violence to make him confess to the charges. Three of the author’s

co-defendants made similar allegations. To investigate these allegations, Nikulinsky District

Court obtained the relevant materials from the criminal case and transferred them to the

Moscow branch of the Main Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the

CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018

4

GE.25-05878

Russian Federation. On 7 February 2018, the Main Investigative Department issued a

decision not to open a criminal case against the law enforcement officers owing to the absence

of corpus delicti. In the same decision, it refused to charge the author and his co-defendants

with filing a false complaint. The State Party notes that, in accordance with article 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal against an investigator’s decision not to open a

criminal investigation may be lodged with a court; however, in his communication to the

Committee, the author does not indicate whether he appealed the decision of 7 February 2018.

4.3

With regard to the author’s claims of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention,

the State Party submits that, in accordance with article 1.2 of the Code of Administrative

Judicial Procedure, the domestic courts are to resolve administrative cases, including those

concerning actions or inactions of the State authorities. Also, article 151 of the Civil Code

provides for the right to monetary compensation if persons suffer physical or mental harm to

their personal non-property rights. The State Party notes that the author failed to submit a

claim to the domestic courts in connection with the conditions of his pretrial detention.

4.4

The State Party notes that the availability of effective legal remedies is evidenced by

the statistical data on complaints related to improper conditions of detention. For example,

according to the Supreme Court, in 2017, a total of 3,912 such complaints were considered

by domestic courts. Of those complaints, 1,898 were resolved in favour of the plaintiffs, and

75,901,437 roubles were awarded as monetary compensation. Accordingly, the State Party

argues that the author’s claim related to his conditions of detention is inadmissible under

article 2 of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

4.5

With regard to the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant, the State Party

submits that, in accordance with article 401.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal

may be lodged against a court decision that has entered into force with a regional court of

cassation. Article 401.1 also provides for a further cassation appeal that may be lodged with

the Supreme Court. The State Party notes that the author has not submitted cassation appeals

to the presidium of Moscow City Court or the Supreme Court against the judicial decisions

authorizing and extending his detention during the pretrial investigation. Therefore, the State

Party argues that the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant are also inadmissible

under article 2 of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

4.6

The State Party notes that the author was charged with committing large-scale

extortion as part of an organized group of 15 individuals. On 26 August 2016, Tverskoy

District Court authorized the author’s pretrial detention and later extended it in accordance

with the established procedure. The State Party submits that the court authorized the author’s

detention because he: (a) was suspected of committing a crime under the category of

particularly serious crimes, for which the punishment would exceed three years in prison;

(b) could have absconded from the investigation or trial, or otherwise interfered with the

establishment of the truth in the case, including by influencing victims or witnesses; (c) could

have covered up or destroyed evidence yet to be discovered; (d) could have communicated

investigation-related information to accomplices who were yet to be identified by the

investigation; or (e) could have continued to engage in criminal activity. The court also took

into consideration the author’s age, marital status, health and other relevant factors.

4.7

The State Party submits that, upon admission to temporary detention facility No. 1

(IVS No. 1), the author underwent a medical examination that found no injuries on his body.

While in detention, he repeatedly complained about insomnia and headaches and received

care and treatment from the medical personnel. On 2 September 2016, the author was

transferred to SIZO No. 4 and subsequently complained that he had been kept handcuffed in

an overcrowded service vehicle for over 12 hours during the transfer. After receiving his

complaint, the prosecutor’s office ordered the administration of IVS No.1 to conduct an

internal investigation into the officers involved in the author’s transfer.

4.8

The State Party submits that, on 29 March 2018, the author was found guilty of

extortion and sentenced to seven years and four months in prison. During the trial, the court

discovered that, when Tverskoy District Court and Moscow City Court authorized the

extensions of the author’s detention, on 14 June 2017 and 21 August 2017, respectively, they

had not been provided with proper documents about the charges brought against the author,

as the documents they had been provided with differed from those contained in the case file.

CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018

GE.25-05878

5

On 18 May 2018, in response to the cassation appeal lodged by the Moscow City Deputy

Prosecutor, the presidium of Moscow City Court quashed the decisions of Tverskoy District

Court and Moscow City Court authorizing the extensions of the author’s pretrial detention,

dated 14 June 2017 and 21 August 2017. However, the trial court, upon examining the

above-mentioned error, concluded that they did not affect the conviction of the author and

his co-defendants. Thus, the State Party submits that there are no grounds to conclude that

the author’s rights have been violated by the extensions of his detention during the pretrial

investigation.

4.9

As to the conditions of the author’s detention in SIZO No. 4, the State Party notes that

the domestic sanitary norms provide for 4 square metres per person in detention cells. While

in SIZO No. 4, the author was detained in two different cells. Cell No. 515, in which the

author was detained with two other individuals, had a total area of 15.07 square metres. Cell

No. 904, in which the author was detained with seven other individuals, had a total area of

34.33 square metres. The State Party submits that both cells are equipped as per the

regulations approved by the Ministry of Justice and that the toilet is walled off from the rest

of the cell by partitions. In addition, every three months, or more frequently when required,

all cells in SIZO No. 4 undergo deratization and disinsection. The State Party notes that the

author has not submitted any complaints about his conditions of detention at SIZO No. 4.

4.10

Concerning the author’s detention in SIZO No. 2, also known as Lefortovo Prison,

the State Party submits that the author was held in a two-person cell that met all standards

and norms set out in domestic regulations. The author was provided with access to weekly

showers, regular fresh linen and sanitation facilities, as well as daily walks for at least one

hour. The State Party notes that cells in SIZO No. 2 are equipped with a forced ventilation

system and the temperature and humidity meet State sanitary requirements. The lighting in

the cells is provided by 100W lamps during the day and 60W lamps at night. In cells, the

toilets are separated by 1-metre-high partitions, and measures have been taken to increase the

height of the partitions to 1.4 metres. Inmates are provided with an immersion heater to heat

water, and hot running water is available in some parts of the housing unit of the facility.

According to the State Party, the author was allowed to freely send and receive mail,

including letters, and to submit complaints to the European Court of Human Rights, the

Federal Penitentiary Service and the SIZO No. 2 administration. The State Party notes that

the author has not submitted any complaints to the prosecutor’s office concerning the

conditions of his detention in SIZO No. 2.

Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

5.

In a letter dated 10 October 2019, the author informed the Committee that he had no

further comments on the State Party’s observations. He notes that his claims concerning the

conditions of his detention are related only to his detention in Lefortovo Prison.

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 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication 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

In accordance with article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall not

consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual

has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State Party’s

submission that, with regard to his claim under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant, the

author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. In particular, he did not appeal,

under article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigator’s decision of 7 February

2018 not to open a criminal investigation into the author’s allegations that he was pressured

by the police to confess to the crimes with which he had been charged. Moreover, he failed

CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018

6

GE.25-05878

to submit a complaint to the prosecutor’s office or a claim to domestic courts in connection

with the conditions of his pretrial detention in SIZO No. 2. The Committee also notes the

author’s submission that he complained about the conditions of detention every time he was

brought before a judge for an extension of his pretrial detention or for an appeal hearing,

court sessions that were also attended by a prosecutor; however, neither the judges nor

prosecutors responded to his complaints. The Committee recalls that authors are required to

show “requisite diligence” in the pursuit of available remedies.2 An appeal under article 125

of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a claim to domestic courts in connection with the

conditions of his pretrial detention would require the author to submit a formal complaint on

his own behalf or through his lawyer. The Committee notes that there is nothing in the

submission to suggest that the author was limited in contacting the outside world when he

was detained in SIZO No. 2. Moreover, the Committee observes the State Party’s contention

that, while detained in SIZO No. 2, the author was able to freely send and receive mail,

including letters, and to submit complaints to the European Court of Human Rights, the

Federal Penitentiary Service and the SIZO No. 2 administration. The Committee notes that

the author has not contested this argument. In the absence of any other information or

explanation on file, the Committee considers that the author has not exhausted all available

domestic remedies concerning his claims under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant and

finds them inadmissible in accordance with article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

6.4

The Committee further notes the State Party’s submission that, with regard to his

claims under article 9 of the Covenant, the author has not exhausted all available domestic

remedies, as he failed to submit cassation appeals to the presidium of Moscow City Court or

the Supreme Court against the judicial decisions authorizing and extending his detention

during the pretrial investigation. The Committee also notes that the author did not provide

comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility. The Committee observes that

the cassation review procedure set out in article 401.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

concerns the review, on points of law only, of court decisions that have entered into force.

The decision on whether to refer a case for a hearing before the cassation court is

discretionary in nature and is made by a single judge, as set forth in article 401.10 of the same

Code. The Committee has previously concluded that the cassation review contains elements

of an extraordinary remedy.3 The State Party must therefore show that there is a reasonable

prospect that such a procedure would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of

the case.4 In the absence of any information from the State Party on the effectiveness of the

cassation review procedure in cases involving a review of judicial decisions authorizing and

extending detention during the pretrial investigation, the Committee considers that it is not

precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the author’s claims

under article 9 of the Covenant.

6.5

The Committee further notes the author’s claim under article 9 (4) of the Covenant.

However, the Committee observes that the author’s arrest and detention, including the

numerous extensions, were authorized and reviewed by domestic courts. In the absence of

any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed

to sufficiently substantiate this claim for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it

declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

6.6

The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his remaining

claims under article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. It

therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the

merits.

Considerations of the merits

7.1

The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information

submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

2 See, for example, D.B.-D. v. Zaire (CCPR/C/43/D/463/1991), para. 4.2; and Singh Bhullar v. Canada

(CCPR/C/88/D/982/2001), para. 7.3.

3 See, for example, Voronkov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/136/D/2951/2017), para. 9.3; and

Krikkerik v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/137/D/2992/2017), para. 8.4.

4 Y.Sh. v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/128/D/2815/2016), para. 8.4.

CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018

GE.25-05878

7

7.2

The Committee notes the author’s claim that his pretrial detention, which lasted for

over a year, was arbitrary because there was no reasonable and justifiable explanation as to

its lawfulness and necessity. The Committee also notes the State Party’s submission that the

domestic courts initially authorized the author’s pretrial detention and later extended it,

following the procedure established by law.

7.3

The Committee recalls, however, that under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, the notion

of “arbitrariness” is not to be equated with “against the law”, but must be interpreted more

broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and lack of

due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.5

Under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, it is not to be the general rule that persons awaiting trial

are detained in custody. Pretrial detention should be the exception rather than the rule. 6

Detention pending trial must also be lawful and based on an individualized determination

that it is reasonable and necessary, taking into account all the circumstances, for such

purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime. Pretrial

detention should not be mandatory for all defendants charged with a particular crime, without

regard to individual circumstances. In addition, courts must examine whether alternatives to

pretrial detention, such as bail, electronic bracelets or other conditions, would render

detention unnecessary in the particular case.7

7.4

The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that the domestic courts made their

judgments about the legality of the author’s pretrial detention on the grounds that the author:

(a) was suspected of committing a crime under the category of particularly serious crimes,

for which the punishment would exceed three years in prison; (b) could have absconded from

the investigation or trial, or otherwise interfered with the establishment of the truth in the

case, including by influencing victims or witnesses; (c) could have covered up or destroyed

evidence yet to be discovered; (d) could have communicated investigation-related

information to accomplices who were yet to be identified by the investigation; or (e) could

have continued to engage in criminal activity. The courts also took into consideration the

author’s age, marital status, health and other relevant factors. However, the Committee notes

that the case file does not include any specific information to support these assertions. In

particular, it does not contain information suggesting that the author would have attempted

to abscond, commit an offence or interfere with the investigation. Moreover, the Committee

observes that the reasoning of the domestic courts in support of extending the author’s

detention remained unchanged even after the courts had been informed, on 14 June 2017,

that V.P. – who, as the author submitted, was the only witness linking him to the crime – had

retracted his testimony against the author and admitted that he had been coerced by the police

into giving false testimony. In the light of these facts, the Committee considers that the State

Party has not demonstrated that the author’s detention meets the criteria of reasonableness

and necessity. Furthermore, it does not appear from the case file that the courts considered

less restrictive alternatives to the author’s pretrial detention. The Committee therefore

concludes that there has been a violation of article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant.

8.

The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that

the facts before it disclose a violation by the State Party of the author’s rights under

article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant.

9.

Pursuant to 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 to provide the author with adequate compensation for the violations that he has

suffered. The State Party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent

similar violations from occurring in the future.

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

5 See the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 12.

6 Ibid., para. 38.

7 Ibid., para. 38. See also Babaryka v. Belarus (CCPR/C/139/D/3788/2020), para. 9.2.

CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018

8

GE.25-05878

undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or 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 present Views and to

have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State Party.