CCPR/C/126/D/2383/2014 6.10 The Committee considers that the author’s claims under article 7, on its own and read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and articles 9 (3), 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant are sufficiently substantiated and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he was subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment when he was beaten, on 19 December 2010, by a group of unidentified attackers dressed in black uniforms. The Committee notes that the injuries sustained by the author are confirmed by the fact that they are mentioned in the investigation decisions available on file and by the fact that he was hospitalized. There are no indications that the author himself presented a threat to others when he was beaten. The Committee also notes that, according to the documents on file, the road police officers involved in the events of 19 December 2010 testified that the men in black uniforms belonged to the police. According to the author, the road police officers took orders from the attackers. In its response to the initial complaint by the author, the State party did not dispute these facts. The Committee considers that the State party must be held accountable for the attack. The Committee therefore finds that, in any event, the road police officers did not protect the author from the attack, in violation of their obligation to provide such protection under article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (1). 7.3 The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that there was no effective investigation of the beatings inflicted on him. The Committee recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially so as to make the remedy effective. 1 The Committee observes, in this regard, that the author reported the alleged beatings to the authorities on the day of his arrest, on 20 December 2010. However, a separate criminal investigation into his allegations started only in April 2011, and the first witnesses were interviewed only in May 2011, some five months after the authorities were informed of the events. In this light, the Committee finds a lack of promptness of investigation. 7.4 The Committee notes that the investigation was closed following the conclusion that there was no evidence that the law enforcement officers were involved in the beating of the author. The Committee observes, in this regard, that it was uncontested that the author had been beaten and that the investigation was closed without an attempt to establish the identity of the people who attacked the author. The Committee considers that such an investigation was not effective and amounts to a violation of article 2 (3) (a) read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee further notes the author’s allegation that his detention was sanctioned by a prosecutor and not by a judge, contrary to the requirements of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that, in its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, it stated that it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with (para. 32) 2 and that a public prosecutor cannot be considered as an officer authorized to exercise judicial power within the meaning of article 9 (3).3 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the author’s right under article 9 (3) of the Covenant to be promptly brought before a judge after his arrest on criminal charges was violated. 1 2 3 6 See general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14; and Neporozhnev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/116/D/1941/2010), para. 8.4, and Abdiev v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/124/D/2892/2016), para. 7.5. See also Smantser v. Belarus (CCPR/C/94/D/1178/2003), para. 10.2, Bandajevsky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/86/D/1100/2002), para. 10.3, and Timoshenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/114/D/1950/2010), para. 7.2. See also Smantser v. Belarus, para 10.2.