Advance unedited version CCPR/C/118/D/2187/2012 Committee considers that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol have been met. 5.4 The Committee has noted the author’s claims under articles 9, paragraph 3, and 4, article 14, paragraphs 1, 3 (d) (e) and article 26, of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, however, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, these allegations. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his remaining claims under article 7, read separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant, article 9, paragraph 1, and article 14, paragraph 3 (g), declares them admissible and proceeds with their consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee first takes into consideration the author’s allegations that he was, on a number of occasions, tortured and otherwise mistreated. The Committee notes that the author reported torture both to the Osh regional court and to the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s admission that the author submitted his torture allegations on 2 September 2010. The State party, instead of launching a prompt and impartial investigation by competent authorities 2, attributed these complaints to the author’s desire to avoid criminal punishment. The Committee also notes that the author and his lawyers provided courts with photographs of the signs of torture, medical examination results confirming signs of torture, and testimonies of witnesses. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s inability to explain the visible signs of mistreatment that were witnessed on a number of occasions, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. 6.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s torture claims, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant.3 The Committee notes, that according to the material on file, there was no investigation that was carried out into the allegations of torture, despite a number of incriminatory witness accounts. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3. 6.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claims under article 9, paragraph 1, that he was arbitrarily detained from 19 July to 24 July 2010, when his detention was reviewed by the Osh city court. The author claims that the State party arbitrarily detained him until 24 July 2010 to allow and enable the police officers to torture him. The State party contends that the author was detained only from 24 July 2010. The author further submits that during these several days of arbitrary detention, he was tortured by several police officers and forced to confess guilt. This confession, the author claims, was used as basis of his 2 3 General comment No. 20 on article 7 (Prohibition of Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), paragraph 14. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, para. 14; and its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18. 5