CCPR/C/122/D/2577/2015 violation of his right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty under article 14 (2) of the Covenant. 9.5 The Committee notes the author’s claims that throughout most of the trial her husband had no access to counsel of his own choosing, his chosen counsel was not given adequate time to prepare the case and neither defence counsel had access to certain documents, including the appeal court decision. It further notes the fact, which is undisputed by the State party, that Mr. Formonov’s chosen counsel, before having been removed from the trial, was given 11.5 hours to have access to the documents, which were provided less than a week before the trial took place. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the State party has violated Mr. Formonov’s rights under article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant. 9.6 The Committee further notes the claim that Mr. Formonov’s confession under duress to the charge of extortion obtained in the presence of the State-appointed counsel was accepted as evidence by the trial court. It also notes the State party’s statement that the evidence considered by the court was obtained in a lawful way and accepted by the court as admissible and that the torture allegations raised in Mr. Formonov’s appeal were reviewed and rejected by the appeals court. In that regard, the Committee notes the author’s contention that the appeals court decision was kept secret. It further notes that the State party has not furnished any documentary evidence to support its statement and that there is nothing on file to suggest that either the trial or the appeals court considered Mr. Formonov’s claim that he was kept incommunicado when he made his confession under duress and that he retracted the confession once he talked to his chosen counsel. In that connection, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant had been violated. 9.7 Having found a violation of article 14 (2) and 14 (3) (b), (d) and (g) of the Covenant, the Committee will not examine separately the author’s remaining claims under article 14 (1) and (3) (e) of the Covenant. 10. The Human Rights 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 Mr. Formonov’s rights under articles 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 9 (1), 14 (2) and (3) (b), (d) and (g), and 19 (2) of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated with an effective remedy in the form of full reparation. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to, inter alia: (a) conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the allegations of torture of the author’s husband and, if confirmed, prosecute, try and punish those responsible; (b) quash the trial court verdicts; and (c) provide adequate compensation to the author’s husband 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 or not 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 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 Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views, and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party. 13