CCPR/C/120/D/2162/2012 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 14 (3) (a) and (f) that his brother, being a native Russian speaker, was not promptly informed of the reasons for and the nature of the charges against him in writing in a language that he understands, could not understand the indictment available only in Kyrgyz and did not receive the verdict in Russian. The State party refuted these allegations by stating that an interpreter was appointed to the case and the author’s brother had access to the materials on the file together with his counsel and the interpreter. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the reasons for arrest must be provided in a language that the arrested person understands.15 It also recalls that the right of all persons charged with a criminal offence to be informed promptly and in detail in a language which they understand of the nature and cause of criminal charges brought against them, enshrined in subparagraph 3 (a), is the first of the minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings of article 14. The specific requirements of subparagraph 3 (a) may be met by stating the charge either orally — if later confirmed in writing — or in writing, provided that the information indicates both the law and the alleged general facts on which the charge is based.16 Given that the indictment is a key document in the criminal proceedings, the Committee considers it essential that the accused person understands the contents fully and that the State makes all necessary efforts to provide that person with a translation free of charge in a language that he/she can understand. In the absence of further information on the file, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations that his brother could not understand the indictment available only in Kyrgyz. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s brother’s rights under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant. 9.3 With respect to the allegation that the author’s brother was not able to understand the language used in court, the Committee recalls also that the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the accused cannot understand or speak the language used in court, as provided for by article 14 (3) (f), enshrines another aspect of the principles of fairness and equality of arms in criminal proceedings;17 this right arises at all stages of the oral proceedings, and applies to aliens and as well as to nationals. 18 The Committee observes, however, that interpretation was available to the author’s brother throughout the proceedings before the courts, as reflected in the protocols of the hearings. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted do not disclose a violation of the author’s brother’s rights under article 14 (3) (f) of the Covenant. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with 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 provide compensation to the author’s brother for the violations suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take all necessary steps to prevent the occurrence of similar violations in the future. 12. 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 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 the State party. 15 16 17 18 10 See general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 26; and communication No. 868/1999, Wilson v. Philippines, Views adopted on 30 October 2003, paras. 3.3 and 7.5. See general comment No. 32, para. 31. See communication No. 219/1986, Guesdon v. France, Views adopted on 25 July 1990, para. 10.2. General comment No. 32.