CCPR/C/144/D/3175/2018

GE.25-13149 (E) 071025 071025

Human Rights Committee

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

Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 3175/2018*, **

Communication submitted by:

Spartak Kletsov (represented by counsel,

Elizaveta Moksheva)

Alleged victim:

The author

State Party:

Kazakhstan

Date of communication:

27 May 2016 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 4 June 2018 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of Views:

9 July 2025

Subject matter:

Torture by police in order to extract confession

Procedural issues:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies; lack of

substantiation of claims

Substantive issues:

Fair trial; torture; arbitrary detention

Articles of the Covenant:

2 (3) (a)–(c), 7, 9 (1) and (2), 10 (1) and

14 (3) (b), (d) and (g)

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2 and 5 (2) (b)

1.

The author of the communication is Spartak Kletsov, a citizen of Kazakhstan born in

1979. He claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (3) (a)–(c), 7, 9 (1)

and (2), 10 (1) and 14 (3) (b), (d) and (g) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into

force for the State Party on 30 September 2009. The author is represented by counsel.

Facts as presented by the author

2.1 On 22 September 2010, an armed robbery took place in an apartment of the author’s

former employer in Taraz, Kazakhstan, during which four people were shot. Three of them

died. The fourth victim survived and identified the author as the perpetrator of the crime. On

23 September 2010, the author saw a television announcement concerning the crime in which

* Adopted by the Committee at its 144th session (23 June–17 July 2025).

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

Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, 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/144/D/3175/2018

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

8 October 2025

Original: English

CCPR/C/144/D/3175/2018

2

GE.25-13149

he was identified as a suspect. The author was on parole at that time and decided to escape

from Taraz. On 24 September 2010, Taraz City Court No. 2 issued an arrest warrant and

authorized his arrest on the grounds that he was accused of committing multiple murders and

had absconded while on parole.

2.2 On 25 September 2010, at about 8 a.m., the author was arrested in Shymkent. At about

4p.m. on the same day, he was taken to the Zhambyl Regional Department of the Interior in

Taraz, where a police officer interrogated him about his involvement in a criminal group

operating in the region. After the interrogation, several police officers drove him to the

outskirts of the town where they beat him, fired gun shots past his legs and threatened to kill

him if he refused to confess to the murder. After a while, the officers brought him back to the

police station.

2.3 At about 8 p.m. on 25 September 2010, the author was taken to a temporary detention

facility in Taraz. The administration of the facility refused to admit him because of injuries

to his face. At 8.50 p.m. he was examined by the facility’s medical specialist. Bruises on his

head, neck and torso and abrasions on his head were recorded. Police officers were present

during the medical examination.

2.4 Following the medical examination, the officers took the author into a room in the

detention ward, where they hit him with a heavy book several times on his head. The author

lost consciousness. The beating lasted until 2.30 a.m. on 26 September 2010. At about

2.50 a.m., the author was taken to another room for a face-to-face confrontation with three

witnesses, which lasted until 4 a.m. The beating continued the next day. The police officers

hit him on his head again with a book, strangled him with their hands, put a plastic bag over

his head and threatened him with sexual violence. The officers then gave him several pages

of printed confession that they forced him to read. His reading of the confession was recorded

on video.

2.5 The author informed his legal aid counsel about the ill-treatment; however, the latter

did not take any measures in relation to the matter. On 28 September 2010, the author orally

complained to a specialized prosecutor about the ill-treatment, but no further enquiry was

made.

2.6 On 27 September 2010, the author was transferred to a pretrial detention facility in

Taraz, which refused to admit him because he had physical injuries that had not been recorded

in the medical certificate issued by the temporary detention facility. The author was taken to

Taraz city hospital No. 1 for an examination. In medical report No. 13723, it was noted that

the author had bruises and a haematoma on his face, abrasions on his right foot, bruises, and

a haematoma and abrasions on the left side of his chest. He was then taken to the pretrial

detention facility and examined by a medical specialist there. The following injuries were

recorded: contusions on the back, left hip and right shoulder, a haematoma on the right eye

and a 5-cm cut on the lower part of his left leg.

2.7 In the pretrial detention facility, the author was placed in a disciplinary cell, where there

were no windows and no heating. He complained to the centre administration and asked to

be transferred to another, warmer, cell. On 8 October 2010, his request was granted.

Subsequently, he was placed in the disciplinary cell for the period starting from the end of

his trial until his transfer to a corrections facility. The cell was allocated to people convicted

for life, which violated the presumption of innocence.

2.8 The term of the author’s detention on remand was extended on several occasions. The

decisions on the matter were taken in his absence; he was never brought before a competent

judge. Furthermore, no official decision on his detention was ever provided to him,

preventing him from lodging a complaint about the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty.

2.9 On 20 November 2010, the author was officially charged with aggravated murder,

attempted murder, robbery and unlawful possession of firearms. On 3 February 2011, the

author was beaten up by three other detainees at the trial court holding cell while waiting for

the hearing. After the incident, upon instruction of the trial judge, the author was taken to city

hospital No. 1 for examination. It was established during the examination that he had received

a contusion, a haematoma and abrasions on the back of his head (medical report No. 2332).

CCPR/C/144/D/3175/2018

GE.25-13149

3

During the hearing, the trial judge informed the parties that the incident would be referred to

the prosecutor’s office for investigation.

2.10 On 7 February 2011, the specialized inter-district criminal court of the Zhambyl

region sentenced the author to life imprisonment with confiscation of property. At the trial,

the author pleaded not guilty, contending that he had been forced to confess under physical

and psychological pressure from the police. The trial court questioned the police officers

allegedly responsible for the ill-treatment. They denied exerting any pressure on the author.

Relying on their statements and the author’s explanation recorded in medical certificate

No. 1006 from the temporary detention facility, in which he had stated that the physical

injuries were the result of falls while in a state of inebriation, the trial court found that the

author’s allegations that he had confessed under physical and psychological pressure were

unsubstantiated. In finding the author guilty, the trial court acknowledged that he had

retracted the confession given during the investigation and pleaded not guilty. The court

relied on the extensive body of evidence, such as statements of witnesses and victims,

physical evidence and expert examinations testifying to the author’s guilt.

2.11 The author appealed against the conviction, complaining, inter alia, that he had been

forced to confess by the police. On 29 March 2011, the Zhambyl Regional Court upheld the

conviction on appeal. The allegations about the author’s forced confession were examined

and dismissed as unsubstantiated on the same grounds as those put forward by the trial court.

On 5 March 2012, the Supreme Court refused to initiate supervisory review proceedings in

his case. On 19 November 2012, the author lodged a cassation appeal. He raised the claims

of forced confession and violation of his right to defence because he had not had an

opportunity to meet with a newly appointed counsel before the appeal hearing. On 10 January

2013, the Zhambyl Regional Court rejected the author’s cassation appeal.

2.12 On 21 February 2011, the Taraz Prosecutor’s Office refused to open a criminal case

into the beatings allegedly sustained by the author in the court holding cell on 3 February

2011, having found that it was the author who had initiated the fight with the other detainees

and that the other detainees beat him in self-defence, the guards had duly intervened to stop

the fight and the allegations concerning the threats received were not corroborated by any

evidence. The Taraz Prosecutor’s Office indicated in its decision that the author could file a

private complaint against the alleged perpetrators. The author did not appeal this decision.

2.13 On 12 July 2012, the non-governmental organization International Bureau for Human

Rights and Rule of Law in Kazakhstan made a complaint to the Zhambyl Regional Prosecutor

on behalf of the author, requesting the opening of an investigation into his ill-treatment by

police officers on 25 and 26 September 2010. The prosecutor’s office referred the complaint

to the Zhambyl Regional Office for Fighting Economic Crimes and Corruption for

investigation. On 4 September 2012, the latter refused to open a criminal case.

2.14 On 12 October 2012 and 29 January and 12 April 2013, the International Bureau for

Human Rights and Rule of Law in Kazakhstan requested the Zhambyl Regional Prosecutor

and the Prosecutor General to conduct a new investigation into the ill-treatment of the author.

It claimed that the investigation into his claims of torture had not included forensic report

No. 13723 of 27 September 2010 from Taraz city hospital, that the author had not been

questioned and that the investigator had not tried to identify witnesses who could testify about

the author’s physical state before the arrest. The requests were denied on 7 November 2012

and 13 February and 10 July 2013, with a reference to an existing valid decision of

4 September 2012 of the Zhambyl Regional Office for Fighting Economic Crimes and

Corruption, which was upheld by the regional prosecutor’s office.

2.15 On 13 November 2013 and on an unspecified date in 2014, the author complained to

the Zhambyl Regional Department of the Interior and requested that an investigation be

opened into his ill-treatment by the police. On 19 November 2013 and 7 July 2014, the

Department of the Interior refused to open a criminal case, referring to a valid decision of

4 September 2012 on the same subject matter and noting that there were no grounds to depart

from the findings made in that decision. On an unspecified date in September 2014, the

author’s complaints against the latter decisions were rejected by the Deputy Prosecutor

General.

CCPR/C/144/D/3175/2018

4

GE.25-13149

Complaint

3.1

The author claims a violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a)–(c),

of the Covenant, on account of ill-treatment by the police on 25 and 26 September 2010.

Although the injuries sustained by the author were documented and reported to the domestic

authorities, no fully fledged investigation was initiated into the matter.

3.2

The author complains that his arrest and pretrial detention were unlawful under

article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant: his deprivation of liberty between 9 a.m. on

25 September 2010 (the time of his apprehension) and 4 p.m. on the same date (the time when

he was brought to the police station) was not recorded. Furthermore, he was charged on

20 November 2010, about two months after his arrest, in violation of the Kazakhstan Code

of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that charges should be brought within 10 days of an

apprehension, or the suspect should be released. Lastly, he was not brought before a

competent judge authorized to decide on his deprivation of liberty either after his arrest on

25 September 2010 or at any other time during his remand detention, decisions adopted by a

judge on his arrest and detention were never provided to him and he was not notified of his

right to challenge those decisions at a court.

3.3

With reference to article 10 (1) of the Covenant, the author claims that, during his

pretrial detention, he was subjected to ill-treatment and psychological pressure by the

personnel of the detention centre and other detainees. Furthermore, the conditions of his

detention in the detention centre in Taraz between 27 September and 8 October 2010 and

then during an unspecified period of time after the trial were degrading as the cell in which

he was placed had neither windows nor heating.

3.4

Lastly, with reference to article 14 (3) (b), (d) and (g) of the Covenant, the author

submits that his right to be presumed innocent was not respected at the early stages of the

preliminary investigation in his case. The investigating authorities very quickly issued a

search warrant against him for murder, the trial court disregarded evidence that could have

established his innocence, he was coerced into reading a pre-prepared confession, he was

subjected to pressure and intimidation during his trial to prevent him from complaining about

the ill-treatment and no effective investigation was conducted into the physical and

psychological violence he had been subjected to by private individuals on the premises of the

trial court. Furthermore, despite his unsatisfactory state of health during the trial, the court

continued holding hearings in his case, the quality of legal assistance during the investigation

and at the trial was poor and he was not given an opportunity to consult with his counsel

before the hearing of his case on appeal, which took place in his absence.

3.5

The author asks the Committee to establish a violation of articles 2 (3) (a)–(c), 7, 9 (1)

and (2), 10 (1) and 14 (3) (b), (d) and (g) of the Covenant and to ask the State Party to reopen

his criminal case and review his conviction, ensure an effective investigation into his

ill-treatment and adopt relevant measures against those responsible, provide him with full

and adequate compensation and rehabilitation for the violations suffered and take measures

to prevent similar violations in the future, in particular, by introducing an obligatory video

recording of each arrest conducted by State officials.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

On 2 August 2019, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility and

merits of the communication. Regarding the author’s allegations under article 7 of the

Covenant, the State Party notes that the author was questioned in the presence of a lawyer

and admitted his guilt. He was examined by a medical specialist when taken to the temporary

detention facility and explained, in the presence of his lawyer, that he had fallen down the

stairs. He did not make a complaint against the police officers. An investigation carried out

on the basis of the author’s complaints resulted in a decision not to open a criminal case. The

medical specialist at the facility who examined the author on 27 September 2010, before his

transfer to the pretrial detention facility, was questioned. She stated that the author had been

diagnosed with concussion but that he had had no bodily injuries and had been unable to

remember where he had sustained his head injury. The results of the medical examination

were recorded in the register of ambulatory patients at No. 213, which the author signed. The

State Party denies that any unlawful actions were taken against the author.

CCPR/C/144/D/3175/2018

GE.25-13149

5

4.2

The State Party submits that the author was detained for a short period of time for a

disciplinary violation in a disciplinary cell at the pretrial detention facility. That cell did not

have windows. He was not kept at other times in a cell without windows. All cells had central

heating.

4.3

Concerning the author’s claim that the lawyers were often changed, the State Party

submits that, whenever he did not have a lawyer, the investigative body had an obligation to

provide him one.

4.4

The State Party denies any violation of article 14 (3) of the Covenant. According to

the minutes of the court sessions, before the start of the hearing, the court enquired as to

whether the author wished to file a motion for recusal against the court or the participants in

the proceedings. No motions for recusal, including against the lawyer, were filed by the

author. During the court proceedings, the author and his lawyer could present evidence in his

defence. The court proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and the sentence

of the trial court was carefully reviewed by higher courts.

4.5

The State Party considers that none of the author’s claims have been substantiated.

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

5.1

On 30 September 2020, the author provided his comments on the observations of the

State Party. He reiterates his claims under all the articles and insists on their admissibility.

5.2

The author states that he was represented by a lawyer during the court hearing

concerning his arrest. During the preliminary investigation, another lawyer was appointed for

him. During the trial, he was represented by a different lawyer, and by yet another lawyer in

the appeal proceedings. He alleges that he met once, in the pretrial detention facility, with

the lawyer who represented him during the trial and did not meet with the lawyer who

participated in the appeal proceedings, during which the author was not present.

5.3

He claims that the trial court was biased towards him and rejected his motions to

question witnesses who could confirm that he had not had injuries before the arrest, which

would have allowed him to argue that his injuries, which were medically recorded, could

only have been sustained after his arrest, to request video records that could support his alibi

or to question additional experts. His alibi was not verified.

5.4

After the attack in the court holding cell, the author was in a bad physical state, but the

court continued the hearing. The trial court referred the incident to the prosecutor’s office for

investigation and did not wait for the result of the investigation, which was essential because

he was forced to confess.

5.5

The author reiterates his claims under article 7, stating that the investigation into his

claims did not consider medical reports No. 1006 and No. 13723. Witnesses who could testify

that the author did not have injuries before the arrest were not questioned. The author

reiterates his claims under article 10 (1) of the Covenant.

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

The Committee notes the allegation of the author that his rights under article 7 of the

Covenant were violated because there was no effective investigation into the beatings that he

sustained on 3 February 2011 in the court holding cell by three other detainees. The

Committee also notes that the author has not appealed the findings of the investigation

(decision of the Taraz city prosecutor of 21 February 2011). The Committee recalls its

jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in

CCPR/C/144/D/3175/2018

6

GE.25-13149

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.1

The Committee observes that the author does not dispute the availability of the remedy, nor

does he offer an explanation as to why the decision in question was not appealed. The

Committee considers that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to this

claim and finds it inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

6.4

The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that his arrest and detention were

arbitrary and unlawful in violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. The Committee

also notes that the author’s claims under article 10 (1) of the Covenant concerning the

conditions of his detention in the pretrial detention facility and his claim that the presumption

of innocence was violated under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. The Committee observes

that the author has not raised these claims before the domestic authorities and finds these

parts of communication inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

6.5

The Committee further notes the author’s allegations under article 14 (3) (d) of the

Covenant about the poor quality of legal assistance, the change of council before the appeal

court hearing and the lack of opportunity to consult with his newly appointed counsel before

the appeal hearing, which took place in his absence. The Committee observes that the author

has not raised claims about the quality of legal representation before the domestic authorities.

On the contrary, in his cassation appeal, available on file, the author argues that his lawyer

was doing the best she could for his defence. The Committee notes that the appeal was written

by the same lawyer and that she represented the author in the court of cassation. The author

does not present any arguments concerning any negative consequences that the change of his

lawyer had for the outcome of the appeal proceedings. The Committee notes, from the

information on file, that the trial court informed the author of his right to request in-person

participation at the appeal hearing. The author did not present information on whether he

filed such request. The Committee does not find the author’s claims under article 14 (3) (d)

of the Covenant sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. It finds this part

of communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

6.6

The Committee notes the author’s claim concerning a violation of his right under

article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant because the trial court convicted him on the basis of a forced

confession. The Committee also notes that there is no evidence that the trial court relied on

the author’s confession given on 27 September 2010 to the police officers. On the contrary,

from the material available on file and as submitted by the State Party in its observations, the

trial court acknowledged that the author pleaded not guilty and based its verdict on evidence

and on the testimonies of victims, witnesses and experts. The Committee finds the author’s

claims under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible

under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.2

6.7

The Committee finds that the author’s other claims under article 7, read in conjunction

with article 2 (3), of the Covenant are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of

admissibility and therefore proceeds to its consideration of the merits.

Consideration of the merits

7.1

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

information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional

Protocol.

7.2

The Committee notes the author’s allegations under article 7, in conjunction with

article 2 (3), of the Covenant that, on 25 and 26 September 2010, he was ill-treated by police

officers in the Zhambyl Regional Department of the Interior in Taraz in order to obtain a

forced confession to a murder and that there has been no effective investigation into his

allegations by the domestic authorities. The Committee also notes that the author provides a

detailed account of his ill-treatment, describes his injuries and submits copies of medical

1 Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4; Leghaei et al v. Australia

(CCPR/C/113/D/1937/2010), para. 9.3; and Alekseev et al. v. Russian Federation

(CCPR/C/134/D/2943/2017, 2953/2017 and 2954/2017), para. 6.4.

2 Kyarizov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/141/D/3097/2018), para. 5.5.

CCPR/C/144/D/3175/2018

GE.25-13149

7

reports No. 1006 and No. 13723. The Committee further notes that the author has attempted

to exhaust available domestic remedies by requesting an investigation into his allegations.

He disagreed with the conclusion of the investigation and tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to

appeal it to the prosecutor’s office. The Committee notes the arguments of the State Party

that the investigation was carried out effectively and that the decision not to open a criminal

case of 4 September 2012 was confirmed by the prosecutor’s office on various occasions.

7.3

The Committee recalls that a State Party is responsible for the security of any person

it holds in detention and that, when an individual in detention shows signs of injury, it is

incumbent upon the State Party to produce evidence showing that it is not responsible for

such an injury.3 The Committee has held on several occasions that the burden of proof in

such cases cannot rest with the author of a communication alone, especially considering that

it is frequently only the State Party that has access to the relevant information. 4 The

Committee notes that, in the present case there is no information on file that could prove that

the author’s injuries were inflicted after his arrest, as medical certificate No. 1006 of

25 September 2010 contains the author’s statement that his injuries were self-inflicted.

Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to

article 7 has been filed, a State Party must investigate it promptly and impartially so as to

make the remedy effective.5 The Committee notes that the Zhambyl Regional Office for

Fighting Economic Crimes and Corruption carried out an investigation into the author’s

allegations of ill-treatment by the police shortly after the International Bureau for Human

Rights and Rule of Law in Kazakhstan submitted a complaint. The investigation led to a

decision, on 4 September 2012, not to open a criminal case. The author, however, contests

the effectiveness of the investigation.

7.4

The Committee observes that the Zhambyl Regional Office for Fighting Economic

Crimes and Corruption, in its decision of 4 September 2012, referred to the testimony

provided by the medical specialist of the temporary detention facility and to the information

from Taraz city hospital No. 1 concerning medical services provided to the author in April

2010. The Committee observes from the text of the decision that the medical specialist

examined the author on 27 September 2010 in relation to his complaints of headache, nausea,

vertigo and vomiting and diagnosed him with concussion. It does not seem that the purpose

of the examination was to record bodily injuries allegedly inflicted by the police officers but

to provide medical help to the author when he was feeling unwell. The medical report from

Taraz city hospital No. 1 of 12 April 2010 (dated 12 April 2012 in the decision) was not

related to the author’s arrest. The investigator referred to the temporary detention facility

medical report No. 1006 of 25 September 2010, noting that, according to the author, the

injuries recorded in that report had been self-inflicted. The investigator noted that the medical

examination had taken place in the presence of a lawyer. Medical report No. 13723 of

27 September 2010 from Taraz city hospital is not mentioned in the decision.

7.5

The Committee reiterates that it is for the authorities to demonstrate that the author’s

injuries were sustained before the arrest (see para. 7.3 above). However, the investigator did

not attempt to find and question the witnesses who had seen the author shortly before the

arrest in Shymkent and whose names could have been indicated by the author and were

available on the trial court records. The Committee notes the author’s allegation, unrefuted

by the State Party, that he was not questioned in the course of the investigation and that police

officers, not a lawyer, were present during the medical investigation at the temporary

detention facility. In view of these facts, the Committee finds that the investigation was not

carried out effectively and did not provide the author with an effective remedy. In view of

3 Eshonov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003), para. 9.8; Siragev v. Uzbekistan

(CCPR/C/85/D/907/2000), para. 6.2; and Zheikov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/86/D/889/1999),

para. 7.2.

4 Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991), para. 9.2; and Bleier v. Uruguay, communication

No. 30/1978, para. 13.3.

5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14; Neporozhnev v. Russian

Federation (CCPR/C/116/D/1941/2010), para. 8.4; and Kurmanbekov v. Kyrgyzstan

(CCPR/C/137/D/2723/2016), para. 9.4.

CCPR/C/144/D/3175/2018

8

GE.25-13149

the above, the Committee therefore concludes that the State Party violated the author’s rights

under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (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 article 7, read in conjunction with

article 2 (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 violation of his rights and

to take appropriate steps to conduct a prompt investigation that is effective, thorough,

impartial, independent and transparent into his allegations of ill-treatment and, if confirmed,

to prosecute those responsible. 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 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 present Views and to

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