CCPR/C/115/D/2289/2013 of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered this communication in the light of the information received, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the claims under article 7 of the Covenant that the author was beaten by several police officers and subjected to physical and psychological pressure to force him to confess guilt in a number of crimes.15 The Committee observes that those allegations have not been refuted by the State party. The Committee recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate the complaint promptly and impartially. 16 The Committee notes that, despite indications that the author was tortured and complaints by the author in this connection, the State party has not presented any information to demonstrate that its authorities have conducted any 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 article 7 of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee further notes the claims that the author was subjected to torture and forced to confess guilt in a number of crimes, and that this confession was used by the courts to convict him, despite requests by the author that such evidence should be suppressed. The Committee 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. 17 Information obtained as a result of torture must be excluded from the evidence.18 In the absence of any information from the State party in this regard, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a separate violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. 7.4 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 “promptly” may vary depending on objective circumstances, delays should not exceed a few days from the time of arrest. In the view of the Committee, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to transport the individual and to prepare for the judicial hearing; any delay longer than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.19 The Committee takes note of the author’s unchallenged allegations that he was apprehended on 7 August 2012, and was officially placed in pretrial detention by the order of a prosecutor on 16 August 2012, and was not brought before a judge until the beginning of the court trial, on 25 February 2013. The Committee recalls that, in its general comment No. 35, it stated that it was inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that such power should be exercised by an authority which was independent, 15 16 17 18 19 See paragraph 2.3 above. See general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14. See, for example, general comment No. 32, para. 41; and communications No. 330/1988, Berry v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 7 April 1994, para. 11.7; Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, para. 7.4; and No. 1769/2008, Ismailov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 7.6. See general comment No. 32, para. 41. See general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 33. 7