CCPR/C/114/D/2017/2010 Committee notes that the alleged victim was detained on death row at the time of the submission and that the communication was submitted on behalf of the alleged victim by his counsel, who presented a duly signed power of attorney to represent him before the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee is not precluded by article 1 of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that his rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant were violated. However, in the absence of further detailed information, explanations or evidence in support of those claims on file, the Committee finds them insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee considers that the author’s remaining claims, raising issues under articles 6; 7; 9 (1) and 3; and 14 (2) and (3) (b), (d) and (g), of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered this communication in the light of all the information received, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims under articles 7 and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant that he was subjected to physical and psychological pressure to force him to confess guilt in a number of crimes and that his forced confessions served subsequently as a basis for the establishment of his guilt and his conviction by the courts. The Committee also notes that those allegations have not been refuted by the State party. In that regard, the Committee recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially. 8 It further recalls that the safeguard set out in article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant must be understood in terms of the absence of any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused, with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt. 9 The Committee notes that, despite clear signs that the author was tortured10 and complaints by his mother and the author himself in this connection, the State party has not presented any information to demonstrate that its authorities have conducted an effective investigation into those specific allegations. In the circumstances, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7 and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant.11 8.3 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 9 (3), any person arrested or detained on a criminal charge “shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power”. The Committee also recalls that “while the exact meaning of ʻpromptlyʼ may vary depending on objective circumstances, delays 8 9 10 11 8 See general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14. See, for example, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 41; and communications No. 330/1988, Berry v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 4 July 1994, para. 11.7; No. 1033/2001, Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 21 July 2004, para. 7.4; and No. 1769/2008, Ismailov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 7.6. See para. 2.3. See, for example, general comment No. 32, para. 60; and communications No. 1401/2005, Kirpo v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 27 October 2009, para. 6.3; and No. 1545/2007, Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 25 July 2011, para. 6.2.