CCPR/C/122/D/2252/2013 3.5 Moreover, the Turkmen authorities publicly declared Ms. Muradova guilty before her trial, denied her the prompt effective assistance of a lawyer, including during her interrogation, closed her trial to the public, and prevented her from meaningfully appealing her conviction by failing to issue a written judgment. This violated her rights under article 14 (1), (2), (3) (b) and (d) and (5) of the Covenant. 3.6 The Turkmen authorities arbitrarily detained, tortured and killed Ms. Muradova to silence her journalism and human rights activism, in violation of articles 9 (1) and 19 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 11 December 2015, the State party submits that Ms. Muradova was charged with weapons-related crimes under article 287 of the Criminal Code. On 17 August 2006, Ms. Muradova was convicted and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. In September 2006,6 Ms. Muradova committed suicide by hanging herself. The prosecutor’s office decided to review the incident, which did not result in a formal investigation since no crime had been committed. Ms. Muradova’s body was transferred to her family. 4.2 Ms. Muradova’s conviction was proved on the basis of witness statements, physical evidence and expert testimonies. The author’s allegations regarding violations of the Covenant are refuted by the materials of the criminal case against her.7 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 4 March 2016, the author submitted that the State party had failed to provide explanations as to how the authorities had concluded that Ms. Muradova had committed suicide. The State party only makes a general statement that the death was examined by the prosecutor’s office. The State party’s submission does not mention the exact date of the death or any details regarding the investigation. Such a superficial assertion cannot satisfy the State party’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation and provide a proper explanation for a death in custody. 5.2 The State party also does not explain how Ms. Muradova received her obvious injuries, as described above (see para. 2.14). The State party does not provide any details or supporting documentation with regard to any autopsy results, although it is clear that one was conducted on Ms. Muradova’s body. Where an individual makes an allegation of torture or dies in custody, the Committee has, on numerous occasions, found that the burden of proof cannot rest solely with the author of the communication, especially considering that the authors and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence. Rather, the burden shifts to the State party to provide a satisfactory and plausible explanation supported by evidence.8 If death occurs in custody, it should be regarded prima facie as a summary or arbitrary execution, unless this presumption can be rebutted by a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation.9 5.3 It is undisputed that Ms. Muradova died in custody. The author provides an account of the strong indications that she was tortured and killed in detention, submitting as much detail as possible, given the incommunicado detention of Ms. Muradova, the threats to her family members and the refusal of the authorities to release the autopsy results. The State party’s response is entirely inadequate. The State party, for example, failed to address the detailed allegations about the lack of safeguards against torture. The family members and the lawyer lacked access to Ms. Muradova, and this left her vulnerable to torture and death. 5.4 Furthermore, the State party failed to provide any information regarding her trial. The family members and other members of the public were prevented from attending the court hearings, no written judgment was provided to the family, which made filing an appeal all but impossible. Ms. Muradova’s presumption of innocence was violated when 6 7 8 9 6 A specific date is not provided. The State party’s response consists of a one-page submission. See Bleier v. Uruguay (A/37/40, annex X), para. 13.3. See Eshonov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003), para. 9.2.