 guarantees of non-repetition.61 44. Ending the violation is part of the right to an effective remedy.62 45. If the State claims available remedies exist, it has the burden of proving their effectiveness.63 46. Failure to carry out an investigation into allegations of violations may also infringe the right to a remedy.64 47. The right to effective remedy entails a corresponding obligation on the State which, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, cannot be suspended even in situations of state of emergency although the particular remedies can be subject to such adjustments as “are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”.65 The State must also make sure that remedies are available to all persons within its jurisdiction, which includes areas over which the State exercises effective control outside its territory. 66 Retrospectivity 48. A key aspect of the principle of legality is the outlawing of retrospective criminal laws and penalties.67 Such absolute protection is found in all the major human rights treaties. Therefore in a number of cases the Human Rights Committee has found a violation of the prohibition of retrospective criminal law where individuals were convicted and sentenced for membership of subversive organisations, which were political parties that were subsequently banned.68 49. Offences include those created under domestic as well as international law. 69 50. A helpful illustration of how the prohibition on retroactive criminal law works involves cases where officers of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) were prosecuted, following the reunification of Germany, for shooting people who had sought to escape to the West. The applicants in those cases argued that they had acted lawfully at the time according to the laws of the GDR. 61 Special Rapporteur on the Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims, UN Doc.E/CN.4/2000/62. 62 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add/13 (2004), para 15. 63 Communication R.1/4, W. Torres Ramírez v. Uruguay, 23 July 1980, para. 5. 64 European Court, Atiman v Turkey, 23 Sep 2014; Inter-American Court, Barrios Family v. Venezuela, Judgment of 24 November 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 393. African Commission, Communications 54/91-61/91-96/93-98/93-164/97, 196/97-210/98, Malawi African Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayantsDroit, Association mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme v Mauritania, 11 May 2000; Human Rights Committee, Communication 1910/2009, Zhuk v. Belarus, 30 October 2013; Communication 1890/2009, Kitenge v. Democratic Republic of Congo, 27 March 2014. 65 General Comment No.29, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, para. 14. 66 Al- Saadoon v. United Kingdom, 2 March 2010; Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 8 July 2004. 67 See for example, European Court, Korbely v Hungary, 19 Sep 2008. 68 Communication 28/1978, Weisz v Uruguay, 29 Oct 1980). 69 Article 15(1) ICCPR, Article 7(1) ECHR; Article 11(2) UDHR. 31