CCPR/C/130/D/2405/2014 The Committee also notes that, at the same time, the four police officers who had arrested the author denied using any physical or psychological pressure on him. 10.3 The Committee recalls that a State party is responsible for the security of any person it holds in detention and when an individual in detention shows signs of injury it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence showing that it does not bear responsibility for that injury.4 The Committee has held on several occasions that the burden of proof in such cases cannot rest with the author of a communication alone, especially considering that frequently only the State party has access to the relevant information. 5 In the absence of any other evidence submitted by the State party to counter the claims made by the author and given the State party’s general acknowledgement that the author was tortured, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. 10.4 With regard to the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s claims of torture, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which a criminal investigation and a consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights, such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant.6 The Committee also recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially so as to make the remedy effective. 7 10.5 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the author initially complained to the Osh city prosecutor’s office on 7 July 2011, alleging that he had been tortured. On 9 July 2011, he underwent a forensic medical examination, which revealed four cuts to his forearm that could have been caused by contact with a hard round object not more than seven days before the examination. The author alleged that he had been further beaten and threatened by police officers for having complained of torture. In this connection, on 11 July 2011, the Osh city prosecutor’s office received a motion requesting the author’s immediate transfer from the Osh city temporary detention facilities to the Osh pretrial detention facilities to ensure his safety due to continuing beatings and threats by the police. 10.6 The Committee observes that, while a first inquiry into the allegations of torture took place on 16 July 2011 and the formal investigation into the allegations started on 22 August 2011, the police officers were not criminally charged until 12 December 2011. In this regard, the Committee notes the author’s claim that, due to the delay in launching the investigation and bringing charges, the authorities failed to interview key witnesses, such as his father who had witnessed his arrest but passed away shortly after it, and to seize important forensic evidence. The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that the author did not report being tortured or ill-treated in his affidavit during the initial inquiry by the prosecutor’s office. The Committee observes that these arguments seem to contradict the documents submitted by the author, which show that he has consistently complained about the beatings at the hands of the police and that he had undergone a forensic medical examination that revealed injuries to his forearm. Taking into account all of the foregoing considerations, the Committee concludes that the State party did not effectively investigate the author’s allegations of torture, particularly due to the fact the investigation was hampered by several shortcomings. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 10.7 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, due to his arbitrary arrest and detention, including incommunicado detention during the first 27 hours following his actual apprehension. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with 4 5 6 7 8 For example, Eshonov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003), para. 9.8; Zheikov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/86/D/889/1999), para. 7.2; and Siragev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/85/D/907/2000), para. 6.2. For example, Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991), para. 9.2; and Human Rights Committee, Bleier Lewenhoff and Valino de Bleier v. Uruguay, communication No. 30/1978, para. 13.3. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14, and general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. General comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14; and, for example, Khalmamatov v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/128/D/2384/2014), para. 6.4.