CCPR/C/118/D/2106/2011 authorities, including the Prosecutor’s Office and the Supreme Court. The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted the allegations, but has merely provided information regarding the criminal charges and the verdict against the alleged victims. In that regard, 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. 6 The Committee further recalls that the State party is responsible for the security of all persons held in detention and that when there are allegations of torture and mistreatment, it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence refuting the author’s allegations. 7 In the absence of any explanation from the State party, the Committee has to give due weight to the authors’ allegations. 8 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose violations of the rights of V.S. and V.L. under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. 9 8.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that on 18 and 19 August 2008, V.S. and V.L. were questioned as suspects in the Prosecutor’s Office in Almalyk in the absence of attorneys or parents and that they were not allowed family visits for the first three months of their detention. The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted those allegations, but has merely provided information regarding the criminal charges and the verdict against the alleged victims. The Committee notes that detainees should be guaranteed prompt and regular access to independent medical personnel and lawyers and, under appropriate supervision when the legitimate purpose of the detention so requires, to family members. The Committee also recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, in which it states that when children are arrested, notice of the arrest and the reasons should also be provided directly to their parents, guardians or legal representatives.10 It further recalls that article 24 (1) of the Covenant entitles every child “to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor on the part of his family, society and the State.” That article entails the adoption of special measures to protect the personal liberty and security of every child, in addition to the measures generally required by article 9 for everyone.11 The Committee therefore considers that the State party has also violated article 24 (1) in respect of V.S. and V.L., who, as minors, should have been afforded special protection.12 9. 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 articles 7, 10 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant, with regard to V.S. and V.L. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the victims 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, inter alia, to carry out an impartial, effective and thorough investigation 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14. See communication No. 2079/2011, Khadzhiev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 8.4. See communications No. 1900/2009, Mehalli v. Algeria, Views adopted on 21 March 2014, para. 7.10, and No. 2234/2013, M.T. v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 23 July 2015, paras. 7.2-7.4. See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 60, and communication No. 1401/2005, Kirpo v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 27 October 2009, para. 6.3. See also communication No. 1402/2005, Krasnova v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, para. 8.5; the Committee’s general comment No. 32, para. 42; and Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 10 (2006) on children’s rights in juvenile justice, para. 48. See the Committee’s general comments No. 17 (1989) on the rights of the child, para. 1, and No. 32, paras. 42-44. See communication No. 2132/2012, Allioua and Kerouane v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014, para. 7.12. 7