CCPR/C/115/D/2289/2013 therein prescribed must be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence, and the right to review by a higher tribunal. 23 In the same context, the Committee reiterates its jurisprudence that the imposition of a sentence of death upon the conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected constitutes a violation of article 6 of the Covenant.24 In the light of the Committee’s findings of a violation of article 7 and article 14 (2) and (3) (d) and (g) of the Covenant, especially in the light of the author’s unrefuted allegations of torture and ill-treatment to force him to confess guilt, which served as a basis for his conviction, it concludes that the final sentence of death and the subsequent execution of Mr. Selyun did not meet the requirements of article 14 and that, as a result, his right to life under article 6 of the Covenant has also been violated. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of Mr. Selyun’s rights under article 6, article 7, article 9 (3) and article 14 (2) and (3) (b), (d) and (g) of the Covenant. The State party has also breached its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide 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 conduct an impartial, effective and thorough investigation into the torture claims, to prosecute those responsible and to provide adequate monetary compensation for the loss of the author’s life and the reimbursement of the legal costs incurred. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future and, in the light of its obligations under the Optional Protocol, to cooperate in good faith with the Committee, particularly by complying with its requests for interim measures. 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 and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in cases in which 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 Views of the Committee. In addition, it requests the State party to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in Belarusian and Russian in the State party. 23 24 See also communication No. 253/1987, Kelly v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 8 April 1991, para. 5.14. See general comment No. 32, para. 59; and communications No. 719/1996, Levy v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 3 November 1998, para. 7.3; No. 1096/2002, Kurbanov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 6 November 2003, para. 7.7; No. 1044/2002, Shukurova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, para. 8.6; Idieva v. Tajikistan, para. 9.7; No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, para. 9.11; and No. 1545/2007, Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 25 July 2011, para. 6.5. 9