CCPR/C/118/D/2128/2012 8.8 The Committee recalls that article 19 (3) of the Covenant allows restrictions to be placed on the freedom of expression, but only such as are provided for by law and are necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others. In this case, the Committee notes that the State party has offered no explanation that would show that the author’s criminal trial and conviction for defamation were necessary to protect the integrity of the judiciary. It follows that, in this case, the conviction and sentencing of the author under article 144 of the Criminal Code were in violation of article 19 (2) of the Covenant. 12 8.9 The author also cites article 2 (3) of the Covenant, whereby States parties are required to guarantee access to effective remedies for all individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations. It refers to its general comment No. 31 on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant (2004) in which it 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. With regard to the present case, the Committee recalls that, in his capacity as an accountant for ETGR, the author reported facts that appeared to reveal acts of embezzlement and corruption committed in ETGR, a State corporation. His complaint was dismissed even though no transparent investigation had been carried out, and the author was sentenced, under article 144 of the Criminal Code, to 18 months’ imprisonment and fined DA 50,000 for insulting a public official. The author also stated that, given the provisions of articles 144 and 300 of the Criminal Code, which prescribe criminal sanctions for anyone bringing complaints against the authorities or criticizing the actions of judicial authorities, he fears further reprisals and prosecution and, therefore, since his release from prison, he has not dared to complain about the abuses he suffered. In the absence of any explanation from the State party, the Committee finds that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 7, article 10 (1), article 14 (1) and (3) (b), (c) and (d), and article 19 of the Covenant in respect of the author. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 7, 10 (1), 14 (1) and (3) (b), (c) and (d), 17 and 19 of the Covenant and of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, article 14 (1) and (3) (b), (c) and (d), article 17 and article 19 of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This provision requires that States parties make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the present case, the State party is under an obligation, inter alia, to conduct a full and effective investigation, to prosecute and punish the perpetrators, and to provide appropriate measures of satisfaction. Pursuant to article 2 (2) of the Covenant, the State party is also required to review its national legislation, in particular article 144 of the Criminal Code, in order to bring it into conformity with article 19 of the Covenant. The State party is also under an obligation to adopt measures to prevent similar violations in the future. 11. 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 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 and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when a violation is found to have occurred, the Committee wishes to receive information from the 12 GE.16-23057 See communication No. 1180/2003, Bodrožić v. Serbia and Montenegro, Views adopted on 31 October 2005, para. 7.2. 11