CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016 such violations40 and to provide other forms of reparation, including compensation, to the victims. 41 Those obligations arise notably in respect of violations recognized as criminal under international law, such as violation of the rights protected under article 7 of the Covenant.42 The Committee further recalls that the rights protected under article 7 of the Covenant cover not only physical pain but also mental suffering.43 7.7 In the present case, the Committee notes the State party’s allegation that the domestic courts have already addressed the author’s claim concerning torture suffered in March 2006 by issuing a decision to provide compensation to the author. The Committee notes that the author contends that the amount of compensation is not adequate, given the severity of the torture he was subjected to in March 2006 and the physical and mental suffering that he endured as a consequence of that torture and that it does not take account of the State party’s failure to protect him from or adequately respond to the torture he suffered. While the State party alleges that the amount of compensation was determined by the court on the basis of the gravity of the case and the harm suffered by the author, the Committee notes the author’s claim that it does not take account of the mental harm he has suffered, his economic and social situation or his need for rehabilitation and that no adequate investigation has been conducted, nor have the alleged perpetrators been prosecuted. The Committee notes that the State party does not provide any convincing explanations concerning whether it has undertaken any adequate investigation into the severity of the torture, in particular the mental suffering that the author endured as a consequence, which should lead to the consideration and determination of a fair amount of compensation in the courts on this ground; or why the alleged perpetrators identified by the author were not prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished. Given the aforementioned, the Committee considers that due weight should be given to the author’s allegations and that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that an adequate investigation into the allegations of torture and his physical and mental suffering was carried out effectively, despite the evidence the author provided. 44 7.8 Accordingly, the State party may not avoid its responsibilities under the Covenant by pointing to the fact that the domestic courts have already dealt with the matter, when it is clear that the remedies granted appear to be ineffective. The Committee therefore concludes that, in light of the lack of any prompt, impartial and thorough investigation, of prosecution or punishment of the perpetrators of torture and of adequate reparation for the author, the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant regarding the torture the author was subjected to in March 2006. 7.9 The Committee notes, with regard to the alleged violation of article 9 (1), (2), (3) and (5), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, the author’s claims that, when he was detained from 28 November to 5 December 2002 and from 20 March to 28 March 2006, he was arrested without a warrant, without being informed of the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him and without there being any official record of the detention. The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the author’s arrest without a warrant on 20 March 2006 and his subsequent detention were conducted according to the procedure defined in the law, as the author was engaged in activities undermining public peace and order (see para. 4.6). However, the State party did not provide any further information on this allegation. 7.10 In this regard, the Committee recalls that the notion of “arbitrariness” in article 9 is not to be equated with “against the law”, but must be interpreted more broadly to include 40 41 42 43 44 Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/87/D/1250/2004), para. 9.3. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992), paras. 13–14; and its general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. See, for example, Gapirjanov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/98/D/1589/2007), para. 10; and Peiris et al. v. Sri Lanka, para. 9. General comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. See, for example, K.N.L.H. v. Peru (CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003), para. 6.3; and L.M.R. v. Argentina (CCPR/C/101/D/1608/2007), para. 9.2. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 5. Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to a Remedy and Reparations for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, annex, para. 15. 13