CCPR/C/130/D/2731/2016 6.8 In the present case, the authors, and even one of the defendants, repeatedly requested that the trial for the murder of Pascal Kabungulu, which began on 28 November 2005, be continued so that the circumstances of his death could be resolved. Instead of instituting such proceedings, and despite the fact that the death was clearly an extrajudicial execution perpetrated by State agents, it appears that the State party’s authorities refused to continue the proceedings after the South Kivu Military Court declined jurisdiction on 29 August 2008. Furthermore, the State party’s authorities no longer seem able to locate the case file, which means that the authors continue to be deprived of any access to an effective remedy that would shed light on the murder of Pascal Kabungulu. The Committee finds that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 6, of the Covenant, with regard to Pascal Kabungulu, and of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant, with regard to the authors. 7. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, finds that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of article 6 and of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 6, of the Covenant, with regard to Pascal Kabungulu. It also finds a violation by the State party of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and of article 17 of the Covenant, with regard to the authors. 8. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors 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 take appropriate steps to: (a) pursue in a prompt, effective, exhaustive, independent, impartial and transparent manner the investigation and prosecution of the murder of Pascal Kabungulu and provide the authors with detailed information on the outcome of these proceedings; (b) prosecute, try and punish those responsible for the violations committed; and (c) provide the authors with adequate compensation and appropriate measures of satisfaction. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 9. 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 or not 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 or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective remedy when a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the present 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. 8 GE.21-00792