CCPR/C/128/D/2368/2014 also arbitrary.17 Article 9 also requires compliance with domestic rules that define when authorization to continue detention must be obtained from a judge or other officer,18 where individuals may be detained,19 when the detained person must be brought to court 20 and the legal limits on the duration of detention.21 Persons deprived of their liberty must be assisted in obtaining access to effective remedies to enforce their rights, including initial and periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention, and to prevent conditions of detention that are incompatible with the Covenant.22 7.6 In the present case, the author claims that his initial detention was both arbitrary and unlawful, as he was not informed, at the time of apprehension, of the reasons for his arrest or of any charge against him, and he was not brought promptly before a judge. In the circumstances as described, and in the absence of further relevant information or explanations by the State party, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under article 9 of the Covenant have been violated. 7.7 The Committee further notes the author’s contention that he was not able to prepare for his defence, as he requested unlimited time to meet with his lawyer but was only allowed two hours per week (see para. 2.5 above), and he was prevented from talking to his lawyer from 25 December 2003 to 3 February 2004 (see para. 5.6 above). The State party, in its observations, does not specifically comment on the aspect of the author having adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the requirement of adequate time is an important element of the guarantee of a fair trial and of application of the principle of equality of arms.23 The Committee notes the uncontested claim from the author that he was only granted two hours a week to prepare for a trial in which he was charged with multiple crimes and was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment. In the circumstances as described by the author, and in the absence of any pertinent explanations from the State party, the Committee finds that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. 7.8 Finally, the Committee notes the author’s claim that, despite his specific requests, he was not present when his appeal was heard by the Supreme Court, and he was not represented by counsel. The State party did not provide any explanations regarding this part of the author’s communication. The Committee notes that despite the fact that under the Criminal Procedure Code, participation of the accused at the appeal hearing is decided upon by the court itself, the State party failed to explain the reasons why it did not allow the participation of the author and his lawyers at the proceedings before the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that there has been a violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view 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), article 9 and article 14 (3) (b) and (g) and (5), of the Covenant. 9. 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: (a) quash the author’s conviction and, if necessary, conduct a new trial, in accordance with the principles of fair hearings, and other procedural safeguards; (b) conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation into the author’s allegations of torture; and (c) provide the author with adequate compensation and other measures of satisfaction for the violations that occurred. The State party is also under 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 11. Gridin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997), para. 8.1. Umarov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/100/D/1449/2006), para. 8.4. Gómez Casafranca v. Peru (CCPR/C/78/D/981/2001), para. 7.2. Israil v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/103/D/2024/2011), para. 9.2. Fijalkowska v. Poland (CCPR/C/84/D/1061/2002), paras. 8.3–8.4; A v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/66/D/754/1997), para. 7.3; and general comment No. 31, para. 15. See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 32.