CCPR/C/130/D/2866/2016 responsible for a violation of articles 6 and 7 is an obligation of means, and not of result, 5 States parties have a duty to investigate, in good faith and in a prompt and thorough manner, all allegations of serious violations of the Covenant that are made against them and their authorities, including those related to torture. 7.5 The Committee notes that the domestic authorities did not deny that Mr. Fiziyev had been beaten and had died in the premises of the State Committee for National Security as a result of the injuries suffered. Two officers were identified by the investigation as suspects and brought to court. They were ultimately acquitted for lack of evidence, and the courts ordered the Prosecutor General’s Office to resume the investigation and identify those responsible. The Committee notes that the final court decision acquitting officers K. and B. dates back to 17 August 2015. Since then, despite several requests for investigation, namely the request submitted to the Prosecutor General’s Office by the author, no one has been identified as a possible perpetrator. The Committee notes that the State party provided, in this regard, very general information on dates of the opening of investigations, their suspension and subsequent reopening. It provided, however, no details concerning any specific steps undertaken within the framework of the investigation or explained why it was impossible to identify suspects of the crime despite availability of witness statements and known identities of some of the officers who questioned Mr. Fiziyev after his arrival at the State Committee office in Bishkek. 7.6 In the light of the above considerations, the Committee concludes that the State party failed to launch a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the circumstances of the torture and death of the author’s brother. The Committee considers that the State party has not provided an effective remedy for the violations of the rights of Mr. Fiziyev under articles 6 (1) and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), 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 by the State party of articles 6 (1) and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), 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) conduct a prompt, effective, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent investigation by an independent mechanism into the torture and death of the author’s brother, and prosecute and punish those responsible; (b) keep the author informed regularly about the progress of the investigation; and (c) provide the author with adequate compensation for the suffering she endured in connection with the violations of her brother’s rights. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the present Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party. 5 6 Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/107/D/1917/2009, 1918/2009, 1925/2009 and 1953/2010), para. 9.5; and Boboev v. Tajikistan, para. 9.3.