CCPR/C/115/D/2052/2011 those protected under articles 6 and 7, States parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Although the obligation to bring to justice those responsible for a violation of articles 6 and 7 is an obligation of means, not of result, 15 States parties have a duty to investigate in good faith and in a prompt and thorough manner all allegations of serious violations of the Covenant made against it and its authorities. 8.5 The Committee also recalls that the burden of proof in relation to factual questions cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.16 8.6 The Committee observes that the State party has failed to explain exactly what happened to Turdubek Akmatov during the considerable time when he was in police custody. The State party has simply noted that the police officers conducted “prophylactic work” with the victim, without providing any details as to what this “work” might have entailed. The State party has provided no records of questioning, interrogation or statements in relation to the victim. Furthermore, it has provided no copies of statements made by police officers and other witnesses, although it submits that “more than 60 witnesses” were questioned in this connection. The Committee further notes that there are no records of the registration of Mr. Akmatov to document his whereabouts during the 10 hours he was in detention on 3 May 2005. 8.7 In the light of the inability of the State party to rely on a deficient and inconclusive investigation to rebut the author’s allegations that his son was killed due to beatings he sustained while in custody, and in the light of the information contained in the medical forensic expert opinions, which are consistent with the author’s version of events, the State party is responsible for the arbitrary deprivation of Turdubek Akmatov’s life, in breach of article 6 (1) of the Covenant.17 8.8 The Committee takes into consideration the fact that the findings of the autopsies and medical forensic examinations that were conducted are consistent with other evidence, suggesting that the author’s son was subjected to acts of torture. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case and the in light of the inability of the State party to rely on a deficient and inconclusive investigation to rebut the author’s allegations that his son was tortured while in police custody, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the rights of the victim under article 7 of the Covenant. 8.9 As to the claims under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (1) and 7, of the Covenant on the ground that the State party failed in its obligation to properly investigate the victim’s death and allegations of torture and to take appropriate remedial measures, the Committee recalls its consistent jurisprudence that criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant.18 The Committee notes that the 15 16 17 18 10 See communications No. 1917/2009, No. 1918/2009, No. 1925/2009 and No. 1953/2010, Prutina at al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Views adopted on 28 March 2013, para. 9.5. See communications No. 30/1978, Bleier v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1982, para. 13.3; and No. 84/1981, Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 9.6. See communications No. 1436/2005, Sathasivam and Sarawathi v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 8 July 2008, para. 6.2; No. 1186/2003, Titiahonjo v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 26 October 2007, para. 6.2; No. 888/1999, Telitsina v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, para. 7.6; and No. 84/1981, Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 9.2. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, para. 14, and its general comment No. 31, para. 18.