CCPR/C/130/D/2731/2016 Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not responded to the authors’ allegations and recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that the burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party is in possession of the necessary information.13 Under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party has the duty to examine in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives, and to provide the Committee with the information available to it.14 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this regard, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that on 31 July 2005, Pascal Kabungulu was murdered by three men in uniform, in his home and in the presence of his wife and children. The Committee further notes that the defendants in the trial that began on 28 November 2005 for the murder of Pascal Kabungulu were mainly members of the military. Yet, after fifteen years, no decision has been handed down on the substance of the case and it is no longer even possible to locate the case file. In the absence of any rebuttal by the State party, the Committee gives due weight to the authors’ allegations and finds that the State party denied Pascal Kabungulu the right to life in particularly serious circumstances, since he was clearly the victim of an extrajudicial execution carried out by State agents, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 6.4 The Committee also notes the anguish and distress that the execution of Pascal Kabungulu caused to the authors, as his close relatives. It is of the opinion that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the authors.15 6.5 The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any justification or clarification as to why soldiers entered Pascal Kabungulu’s family home by force and without a warrant, in the middle of the night, and committed acts of violence against him, in the presence of the authors. The Committee also notes that, after the assassination, the authors received threats and had to leave the country and apply for refugee status in Canada. In the absence of observations from the State party and taking into account all the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that these facts constitute arbitrary and unlawful interference with the authors’ privacy, home and family. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party violated the authors’ rights under article 17 of the Covenant.16 6.6 In view of the above, the Committee will not consider separately the claims made under article 23 (1) of the Covenant.17 6.7 The authors also invoke article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which requires States parties to ensure that individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights recognized in the Covenant. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of violations of the rights enshrined in the Covenant. 18 It refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004), which states that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 13 14 15 16 17 18 GE.21-00792 See, inter alia, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 8.3. Mezine v. Algeria (CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008), para. 8.3; and Medjnoune v. Algeria (CCPR/C/87/D/1297/2004), para. 8.3. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.6; Khirani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/104/D/1905/2009), para. 7.6; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.6; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.5; and El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005), para. 6.11. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.10. Boudjema v. Algeria (CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013), para. 8.12. Allioua and Kerouane v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012), para. 7.11. 7