CCPR/C/109/D/1910/2009 Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered this communication in the light of all the information received, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims under articles 7 and 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant that Mr. Zhuk was subjected to physical and psychological pressure with the purpose of eliciting a confession of guilt and that his confession served as a basis for his conviction. The Committee also notes that these allegations were not refuted by the State party. In this regard, 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. 12 It further recalls that the safeguard laid down in article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant must be understood in terms of the absence of any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused, with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt. 13 The Committee notes that, despite the medical certificate evidencing injuries on the body of the author’s son, which was submitted by the defence lawyers during the cassation proceedings, the State party has not presented any information to demonstrate that it had conducted any investigation into the ill-treatment allegations. In these circumstances, due weight must be given to the author’s claims and the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of Mr. Zhuk’s rights under articles 7 and 14 (para. 3 (g)) of the Covenant. 14 8.3 As to the author’s claim that Mr. Zhuk was arrested on 1 March 2009, but was not brought before a judge for a review of his detention until 6 June 2009, three months and five days after his arrest, the Committee notes that the State party failed to address these allegations. While the meaning of the term “promptly” in article 9, paragraph 3, must be determined on a case-by-case basis, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 8 (1982) on the right to liberty and security of persons 15 and its jurisprudence, 16 pursuant to which delays should not exceed a few days. The Committee further recalls that it has recommended on numerous occasions, in the context of consideration of the States parties’ reports submitted under article 40 of the Covenant, that the period of police custody before 12 13 14 15 16 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14 (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortyseventh Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/47/40), annex VI, sect. A). See, for example, the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 41 (Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixtysecond Session, Supplement No. 40, vol. I (A/62/40 (Vol. I))); communications No. 330/1988, Berry v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 4 July 1994, para. 11.7; No. 1033/2001, Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 21 July 2004, para. 7.4; No. 1769/2008, Ismailov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 7.6. See, for example, the Committee’s general comment No. 32, para. 60; communications No. 1401/2005, Kirpo v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 27 October 2009, para. 6.3; No. 1545/2007, Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 25 July 2011, para. 6.2. Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/37/40), annex V, para. 2. The Committee found that, in the absence of any explanations by the State party, a delay of three days in bringing a person before a judge did not meet the requirement of promptness within the meaning of article 9, paragraph 3 (see communication No. 852/1999, Borisenko v. Hungary, para. 7.4). See also communications No. 2120/2011, Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus, para. 11.3, and No. 1787/2008, Kovsh v. Belarus, Views adopted on 27 March 2013, paras. 7.3–7.5.