CCPR/C/126/D/2356/2014 defending himself through legal assistance, contrary to article 14 (3) (b). Furthermore, the authors claim that Mr. Ismanov’s lawyer did not have full access to his client and that, on occasions, they could not meet with him in private (para. 2.6). The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32, in which it stated that adequate time and facilities to meet with a lawyer are an important element of the guarantee of a fair trial and an application of the principle of equality of arms. 20 The Committee notes that, although the State party contends generally that Mr. Ismanov was able to meet with his lawyers (para. 4.6), it does not refute the authors’ specific claims that Mr. Ismanov was initially interrogated without being able to consult with his lawyer, that, on 8 January 2011, he was able to see his lawyer, but not to communicate with him and that, on other occasions, he was not able to meet with his lawyer in private (para. 2.6). The Committee concludes that, on the basis of the information before it, Mr. Ismanov was denied proper access to his lawyer and the ability to communicate with counsel in private,21 in violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. 7.10 The Committee further notes the authors’ claims that Ms. Nazhmutdinova experienced severe stress, especially when she learned that her husband had been taken away by a group of unknown men with a bag placed over his head, and that subsequently and for several days she was not able to locate him despite all her efforts (paras. 2.3 and 3.7), causing her to be afraid that she would never see him alive again. She was later aware that Mr. Ismanov was held in pretrial detention for nine months, during which time he complained that he was still being tortured (paras. 2.4 and 2.8), which, as a result, led to a significant deterioration in his health (para. 2.7). The Committee understands the anguish and mental stress that these circumstances caused to Ms. Nazhmutdinova, compounded by the inability or refusal of the State party to effectively investigate the claims of torture against her husband, and concludes that such treatment amounts to inhuman treatment of Ms. Nazhmutdinova, in violation of her rights under article 7 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 Mr. Ismanov’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 9 and 14 (1) and (3) (b), of the Covenant and of Ms. Nazhmutdinova’s rights under article 7 thereof. 9. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to take appropriate steps to (a) conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture and ill-treatment and initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible; and (b) provide the authors with adequate compensation for the violations that occurred. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring 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 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 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. 20 21 Ibid., para. 32. Gridin v. Russian Federation, para. 8.5. 9