CCPR/C/114/D/1902/2009 Covenant have been violated. Likewise, in the absence of any pertinent information from the State party to justify the restrictions imposed contrary to the provisions of article 21 of the Covenant, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under article 21 of the Covenant have been violated. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the State party has violated the author’s rights under articles 9, 19 (2) and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide Yuriy Bakur, the author of the present communication, with an effective remedy, including reimbursement of the amount of the fine and of any legal costs incurred by him, as well as an adequate compensation. The State party is also under the obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. In that connection, the Committee reiterates that the State party should review its legislation, in particular the Law on Mass Events of 30 December 1997.9 10. 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 or not 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 in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in Belarusian and Russian in the State party. 9 8 See, for example, communications No. 1851/2008, Vladimir Sekerko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 28 October 2013, para. 11; No. 1948/2010, Turchenyak et al v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 July 2013, para. 9; No. 1790/2008, Govsha, Syritsa and Mezyak v. Belarus, Views adopted on 27 July 2012, para. 11.