CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016 lodged by the accused on 20 September 2012 (paras. 2.12 and 2.13), or almost three years later. 7.4 The Committee recalls that, under article 14 (3) (c), everyone has the right “to be tried without undue delay”. 21 The Committee further recalls that Mr. Zogo Andela was arrested on 29 March 2011; that he was brought before the government procurator of the Mfoundi high court on 30 March 2011; that he was charged, the same day, with the offences of misappropriation of public funds and unlawful withholding of property and that he was thus remanded in custody. The State party argued that the examining magistrate had been engaged in numerous investigative procedures between April 2011 and September 2012 and that the case had then been transferred under a committal order to the Special Criminal Court. The material before the Committee also shows that a first hearing was held before the Special Criminal Court on 12 October 2016 (para. 2.25). The Committee has taken note of the State party’s information on the charges brought against Mr. Zogo Andela, the complexity of the case and the procedural requirements under the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the State party did not provide any specific grounds to justify the long delay between the indictment of Mr. Zogo Andela on 30 March 2011 and the first hearing on 12 October 2016. Moreover, the State party did not provide the Committee with any information on the subsequent progress of the trial after that first hearing. The Committee is of the view that such a delay was all the more serious in that Mr. Zogo Andela has been in pretrial detention continuously since his arrest in 2011. 7.5 In the light of the information submitted to the Committee, and in the absence of satisfactory explanations by the State party, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 14 (3) (c). Having come to this conclusion, the Committee decides not to consider separately the claim made by the author on the basis of article 14 (2) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of article 9 (1), (2), (3) and (4) and of article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant in the case of Mr. Zogo Andela. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to furnish the author with an effective remedy. This requires States parties to provide full redress to persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated. In the present case, the State party is required, inter alia, to: (a) immediately release Mr. Zogo Andela pending his trial; (b) bring Mr. Zogo Andela to trial without delay; and (c) provide Mr. Zogo Andela with appropriate compensation for the violations that he has suffered. The State party also has an obligation to take measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the 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 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 Committee’s Views and to distribute them widely in the official languages. 21 14 See, in particular, Taright v. Algeria, para. 8.5. GE.17-22814