CCPR/C/125/D/2448/2014 for distribution of pornographic materials, the State party violated their right to a fair trial and to freedom of religion, and that such treatment discriminated against them on the basis of their religious belief. The Committee notes that both authors did not have lawyers to represent them during their trials, which is uncontested by the State party. The Committee also notes both authors’ allegation that the pornography charges against them were fabricated by the police in order to intimidate and punish them for their religious belief and activities as Jehovah’s Witnesses. In this connection, the Committee notes that the State party does not dispute that both authors are known to the law enforcement authorities as Jehovah’s Witnesses; the first author was initially sentenced to a fine for illegal distribution of religious material, while the second author, a Jehovah’s Witnesses minister, was arrested during a gathering held in a private apartment to read and discuss the Bible. The Committee also notes the authors’ statements, uncontested by the State party, that police officers entered their houses without warrants and seized religious literature and their laptops without sealing/protecting the items against possible tampering. Furthermore, it notes the information that their religious organization is regularly the subject of intimidation and punishment by the authorities and was denied permission to be registered officially in Turkmenistan. 7.3 The Committee notes the first author’s argument that the testimonies of the two witnesses against him are illogical and suspiciously identical, as the stories of the witnesses, who allegedly did not know each other, are exactly the same. It notes that his conviction relied only on the written summary of the testimonies of the two witnesses, who did not appear before the court. The Committee observes that the first author was not able to examine, or to have examined, the witnesses, or the reliability of the statements made, which is not refuted by the State party. The Committee also notes that, throughout the procedure, he had no counsel. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s claims that the authors’ sentencing and imprisonment are lawful, since their guilt was established by the evidence examined in court and their punishment was in accordance with the law. In this connection, the Committee notes that the President subsequently amnestied both authors, the second author having served a significant portion of his sentence. However, the Committee observes that the authors were not acquitted of the charges against them and nor did they have their criminal records expunged. 7.5 The Committee also notes the second author’s claim that he was ill-treated while on remand, notably that he was repeatedly beaten by prison officials on his head and in his stomach and kidneys until he was left unconscious, and that the officials threatened that he would be raped when transferred to the prison colony. Afterwards he was beaten by a group of prisoners who, according to the author, were collaborators of the prison administration in the LBK-12 prison colony. The Committee further notes that his family was at first denied permission to see him and when finally permitted to visit him could see that his face was swollen. The Committee notes that the family officially lodged a complaint with the authorities for the ill-treatment that the second author had suffered, without this yielding any results. The Committee recalls that complaints of ill-treatment must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities. 4 The Committee also notes that the State party has not refuted the allegations of torture and ill-treatment, nor has it provided any information in this respect. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the second author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts as presented reveal a violation of the second author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 7.6 In the light of the above, and considering the significant consequences for both authors of their sentencing, their imprisonment and the impediments to their religious activities as Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Committee concludes that the authors’ rights under article 14 (1) and (3) (d) and (e) and article 18 of the Covenant have been violated. In the light of this conclusion, the Committee decides not to examine the authors’ claims under article 18 read in conjunction with article 26 of the Covenant. 4 See, for example, Timmer v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/111/D/2097/2011), para. 6.3; and Aminov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012), para. 9.2. 5