CCPR/C/128/D/2368/2014 substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, these allegations, and in finding so, declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his claims of violations of his rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), article 9 and article 14 (3) (b) and (g) and (5) of the Covenant, declares them admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 Firstly, the Committee notes the author’s claim that on 1 March 2002, after being brought to the Ilyichevsk police station, he was beaten, including with a rubber baton and a wooden bat, was suffocated with a plastic bag, and was electrocuted, parts of his body were burned and he was hung on a metal bar. As a result, he suffered multiple injuries, lost consciousness and had to be hospitalized, as confirmed by medical certificates that he presented. The State party, in its response, seems to admit that the author sustained injuries, but provides no particular explanations about the specific circumstances of the reported injuries. The Committee also notes the author’s claims that he was unlawfully detained and tortured to force him to confess guilt for crimes he had not committed, and that, subsequently, those confessions were retained as evidence against him in court, despite his numerous retractions and complaints of torture, including in court during the trial, and during the cassation appeal. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s failure to provide detailed explanations regarding the treatment the author was subjected to at the early stages of detention and during his interrogation, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. 7.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s claims of torture, 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.16 The Committee notes that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of torture was carried out promptly or effectively or that any suspects were identified, despite detailed reports from the author, witness statements, and detailed medical records indicating injuries. The Committee also notes that the court used the author’s confession, among other evidence, in finding the author guilty, despite his contention made during the trial hearings that he had been tortured. Accordingly, in these circumstances, 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) and article 14 (3) (g), of the Covenant. 7.4 The Committee next considers the author’s claim that from 1 to 4 March 2002, he was detained unlawfully, and that the police officers tortured him and obtained his confession under duress. The Committee also notes the author’s claims that upon his unlawful apprehension, he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, and he was not brought promptly before a judge. The Committee notes in this regard that the State party provides no explanation whatsoever regarding the events during this period, claiming only that the author was arrested on 4 March 2002 and charged with robbery under the Criminal Code. 7.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, in which it refers to the prohibition on arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of liberty, that is, deprivation of liberty that is not imposed on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. The two prohibitions overlap, in that arrests or detentions may be in violation of the applicable law but not arbitrary, or legally permitted but arbitrary, or both arbitrary and unlawful. Arrest or detention that lacks any legal basis is 16 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14; and its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18. 7