CCPR/C/130/D/2405/2014 article 9 (1), no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention and no one shall be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. According to the author, after his arrest on 5 July 2011, he was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer, he was moved between two police stations and a detention facility, and was taken to the investigator for interrogation only at 11 p.m. on 6 July 2011. The Committee observes that, because his whereabouts were unknown to his family, his father and a lawyer hired by his family visited several local police stations in an attempt to locate the author. After failing to find him, they submitted several complaints to the Osh city prosecutor’s office and to the Osh provincial prosecutor’s office describing the author’s detention and disappearance. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author was released shortly after his arrest on 5 July 2011. The Committee observes that the domestic authorities gave divergent explanations of the events of 5 and 6 July 2011, especially in the initial stages of the investigation into the author’s arrest and detention. 10.8 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014), according to which arrest within the meaning of article 9 need not involve a formal arrest as defined under domestic law. Beyond the requirements of the Covenant that no one shall be deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law, the State party denies that it held the author during the night in question, despite witness accounts to the contrary and the fact that his family members and lawyer were unable to locate him. In the absence of a clear and plausible explanation from the State party regarding the author’s whereabouts, the conditions of his detention and the record of arrest, the Committee considers that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. In the light of this conclusion, the Committee will not examine separately the author’s claims under article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant. 11. The 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 the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 12. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author 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 conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if confirmed, have those responsible prosecuted and adequately punished and to provide the author with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 13. 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 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. 9