CCPR/C/130/D/2400/2014 those protected by article 7 of the Covenant. 9 The Committee also recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially so as to make the remedy effective and, if confirmed, have those responsible prosecuted and punished.10 7.6 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the initial complaint about the torture suffered by the author was submitted to the Sokuluk district prosecutor’s office on 7 December 2009. The Committee observes that the first refusal to open a criminal investigation into the author’s allegations was issued by the Sokuluk district assistant prosecutor on 17 December 2009, before the author was even examined for his injuries, based only on the testimonies of the author, his mother and brother and the three police officers against whom the author had submitted a complaint, who denied any use of force. The Committee also observes that, following the author’s successive appeals, there were at least five more inquiries held by the Sokuluk district prosecutor’s office into the author’s allegations of torture, each ending with a refusal to open a criminal investigation and its being quashed and returned for additional inquiry by higher ranking prosecutors or by the courts. In this regard, the Committee notes the author’s argument that, despite repeated orders for additional inquiries, the prosecutor’s office never questioned the doctors who treated him for the injuries sustained during the arrest or his neighbours, who could have provided information as to whether he had any injuries before the arrest, or examined the closed-circuit television footage from the Sokuluk district police department, which would have shown the details and exact timeline of his detention. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that, in spite of successive inquiries held by the Sokuluk district prosecutor, the State party has not provided any specific information indicating that any effective investigation was carried out into the author’s allegations of torture. In these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. 7.7 Furthermore, the Committee notes the author’s claim under article 9 (1) of the Covenant to the effect that he was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention for more than five hours without access to a lawyer or family member. According to the author, the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the police to make a formal record of an arrest for anyone who is detained for more than three hours, which was not done in his case. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 35 (2014), procedures for carrying out legally authorized deprivation of liberty should be established by law and States parties should ensure compliance with their legally prescribed procedures. 11 It also requires compliance with domestic rules providing important safeguards for detained persons, such as making a record of an arrest and permitting access to counsel.12 In the absence of the State party’s explanation in this regard, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 9. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author 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 conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if confirmed, have those responsible prosecuted and adequately punished and to provide the author with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 9 10 11 12 6 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14, and general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. General comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14; and, for example, Khalmamatov v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/128/D/2384/2014), para. 6.4. General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23. Ibid.