CCPR/C/130/D/2400/2014 only to persons charged with a criminal offence. The Committee notes that, in the case at hand, the author was never charged with any crime. Therefore, the Committee considers that this claim is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant and declares it inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and article 9 (1) of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares them admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, on 4 December 2009 at 5.30 p.m., he was arrested at his house by three police officers, handcuffed and taken to the Novopavlovka police station in Sokuluk district. At the police station, he was placed in an office on the second floor and was urged to confess to stealing a computer from the factory where he was working as a loader at the time. He was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer. He refused to confess and was subjected to beatings. The author alleges that one of the officers put on boxing gloves and started punching him in the head. Another officer punched him in the kidneys, chest and stomach, while the third officer beat the soles of his feet with a baton. The author also claims that the officers threatened to take him to a nearby canal and pour water over him until he confessed or to plant drugs in his pockets. At approximately 10 p.m., the officers took him to the Sokuluk district police department, where he was recognized by a friend, also a police officer, who asked them to release him. As a result, the author was released and taken home by his friend. 7.3 The Committee observes that the author has submitted a detailed account of the torture to which he claims he was subjected, with supporting evidence of the medical treatment that he underwent shortly after the incident. According to the medical documents provided by the author, he suffered a craniocerebral trauma, concussion and bruising on his face, head, limbs and soles of his feet. As a result, the author spent 10 days at the hospital treating his injuries. Due to persistent symptoms, he subsequently underwent treatment for 12 more days in the neurology department of the same hospital and 10 days in the cardiology department of another hospital. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the Sokuluk district prosecutor’s office refused, on numerous occasions, to open a criminal investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and that the refusals dated 3 March and 28 August 2010 were quashed by the domestic courts and assessed according to the appropriate legal standards. 7.4 The Committee recalls that a State party is responsible for the security of any person it holds in detention and, when an individual in detention shows signs of injury, it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence showing that it is not responsible for that injury.7 The Committee has held on several occasions that the burden of proof in such cases cannot rest with the author of a communication alone, especially considering that frequently only the State party has access to the relevant information. 8 In the absence of any other arguments by the State party to counter the claims made by the author, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s detailed allegations of torture. 7.5 With regard to the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s claims of torture, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights, such as 7 8 For example, Eshonov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003), para. 9.8; Zheikov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/86/D/889/1999), para. 7.2; and Siragev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/85/D/907/2000), para. 6.2. For example, Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991), para. 9.2; and Human Rights Committee, Bleier Lewenhoff and Valino de Bleier v. Uruguay, communication No. 30/1978, para. 13.3. 5