CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013 Committee further notes the author’s claim that he suffered torture during his incommunicado detention from 17 September to 6 October 2009. It notes the allegations that DRS officers subjected the author to five or six interrogations per day, during which he was systematically slapped, kicked, punched, choked and spat at; and that, on several occasions, he was forced to strip by DRS officers, who urinated on him when he asked to take a shower. The Committee notes that the State party has confined itself to denying these allegations on the pretext that only the author made such claims, when in fact the record of the hearing before the investigating judge of one of his co-accused, on 18 November 2009, contains similar allegations. The Committee further notes that, during the proceedings, the author repeatedly denounced the torture to which he had been subjected. Given the failure to investigate these allegations and the absence of any conclusive evidence, other than a medical report that is not sufficient to establish whether the author underwent a thorough medical examination at the end of his period in police custody, and whose probative value has been called into question by the author, the Committee finds that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3. 7.4 In the light of the above finding of a violation of article 7, the Committee has decided not to consider separately the claims made under article 10 of the Covenant. 7.5 Regarding article 9, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that he was arrested on 17 September 2009 and held incommunicado, without contact with the outside world, including counsel or his family, and that his detention in an unknown location was not subject to the oversight of the prosecutor’s office, a fact attested to by the lack of any procedural document from the public prosecutor prior to 6 October 2009, the date on which the author’s period in police custody ended. The Committee notes that, according to the author, the case file contains neither the grounds for his detention in police custody, nor the authorizations from the public prosecutor for the detention and its extension, which demonstrates that the author’s arrest and detention were arbitrary. The Committee also notes the State party’s failure to investigate the author’s alleged arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention, despite the complaints he lodged. As the State party has not provided any explanation for the absence in the case file of information on the exact date of the author’s arrest, the grounds for the arrest and the legality of his detention, and in the absence of any investigation into the allegations, the Committee finds that the State party violated article 9 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3. 9. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 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. In the present case, the State party is obliged, inter alia, to conduct an effective and complete investigation of the facts, to prosecute and punish the perpetrators, and to provide appropriate measures of satisfaction. The State party is also obliged to take steps to prevent similar violations in future. 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 or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the present Views. In addition, the State party is invited to GE.16-07656 13