CCPR/C/130/D/2160/2012 9.4 The Committee recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate the complaint promptly and impartially.13 In the absence of any relevant information from the State party, specifically in relation to any effective investigation undertaken to address expeditiously, independently and adequately the allegations advanced by the author,14 due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the facts as submitted reveal that the State party has failed in its duty to adequately investigate the allegations put forward by the author. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts as presented amount to a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 9.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 14 (1) that the trial was conducted on the premises of a military unit in Osh and that some of the defendants’ relatives were not allowed to attend. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that the trial court did not take any action to provide security for trial participants or control the hostile behaviour of some of the participants; as a result, defendants’ lawyers and relatives were constantly threatened and assaulted by relatives of the victims, often in the presence of the police, who chose not to interfere. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 (2007), in which it states that all trials in criminal matters or related to a suit at law must in principle be conducted orally and publicly and that the publicity of hearings ensures the transparency of proceedings and thus provides an important safeguard for the interest of the individual and of society at large.15 The Committee notes that article 14 (1) acknowledges that courts have the power to exclude all or part of the public for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would be prejudicial to the interests of justice. 16 However, the State party had not shown that any of these conditions applied in the present case. The Committee reiterates that a hearing is not fair if, for instance, the defendant in criminal proceedings is faced in the courtroom with the expression of a hostile attitude from the public or support for one party that is tolerated by the court, thereby impinging on the right to defence, or is exposed to other manifestations of hostility with similar effects. 17 In the absence of any explanation by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts as submitted disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 9.6 Having come to a conclusion regarding a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee decides not to examine the claims regarding the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (e) and (g) separately. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with 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. In the present case, the State party is under an obligation, inter alia, (a) to quash the author’s conviction and, if necessary, conduct a new trial, in accordance with the principles of fair hearings and other procedural safeguards provided by the Covenant; (b) to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if the allegations are confirmed, have the persons responsible prosecuted; and (c) to provide the author with adequate 13 14 15 16 17 General comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14. See, for example, Abromchik v. Belarus (CCPR/C/122/D/2228/2012), para. 10.4; Allaberdiev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015), para. 8.3. General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 28. Ibid., para. 29. Ibid., para. 25. 7