CCPR/C/123/D/2767/2016 legislation pursued a legitimate aim, such as protecting personal honour, the Committee considers that detention was not a necessary or proportionate measure to achieve that aim, 27 in violation of her right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the Covenant. 10.10 With regard to the author’s allegations under article 9 of the Covenant which relate to the arbitrary nature of her arrest and detention, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence indicating that the concept of “arbitrariness” must not be equated with that of “against the law”, but it should be interpreted more broadly such as to include considerations relating to inappropriateness, injustice, unpredictability and due process guarantees as well as those relating to reasonableness, necessity and proportionality. 28 The Committee further recalls that detention or imprisonment is arbitrary when it is used as a penalty for the legitimate exercise of rights guaranteed under the Covenant, such as freedom of opinion and expression.29 10.11 The Committee considers that, in the circumstances described and in the light of the public statements made by the businessman in question and by other high-level executive and judicial authorities of the State of Puebla, statements that have not been refuted by the State party, and for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.8, the author’s detention was neither necessary nor proportionate but was punitive and consequently arbitrary, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant.30 10.12 Lastly, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that she did not have access to an effective remedy for investigating and punishing those responsible for the violations of her rights within a reasonable time, in violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee notes in this respect that the author filed complaints for acts of torture, attempted rape, arbitrary detention and abuse of authority, among other offences, in March 2006, but that, 12 years later, no progress had been made in investigating several of those complaints. The Committee notes, in particular, that the prosecution service brought criminal proceedings against two judicial officials only in January 2008, that is, nearly two years later, and that the criminal courts nevertheless declined to open a criminal case. It was only in December 2014, after six years of inaction and shortly after the submission of the present communication to the Committee, that a new investigation was opened against the two officials and criminal proceedings were brought. This resulted in the conviction of one of the two officials in October 2017, nearly 12 years after the submission of the author’s complaint, while the other official has evaded justice since December 2014. Regarding the other persons against whom complaints were brought, namely the businessman and the senior executive and judicial authorities of the State of Puebla, the prosecution service decided in June 2008 not to bring criminal proceedings. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of information from the State party justifying such significant delays, the Committee concludes that the author did not have access to an effective remedy to address the violations of her rights, in violation of article 2 (3), in conjunction with articles 3, 7, 9 and 19 of the Covenant. 10.13 The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 3, in conjunction with article 7; 9; 19; and 2 (3), in conjunction with articles 3, 7, 9 and 19 of the Covenant. 11. 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 that full reparation be made to individuals whose rights have been violated. In this connection, the State party should: (a) conduct an impartial, prompt and thorough investigation into the author’s allegations; (b) prosecute, try and punish appropriately the persons found guilty of the violations; and (c) provide the author with appropriate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the 27 28 29 30 GE.18-14178 In this connection, see the Committee’s Views in Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola (CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002), para. 6.8, and Khadzhiyev v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/121/D/2252/2013), para. 7.7. See also CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, para. 6.8. General comment No. 35 on liberty and security of person, para. 12. Ibid., paras. 17 and 53. In this same regard, see the Committee’s Views in Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola, para. 6.1. 13