CCPR/C/112/D/2069/2011 7. All these facts and events have been reported by the author (see paragraphs 2.1 to 2.7 of the communication), and the Committee considers them to have been proven. It also took into consideration the lack of cooperation on the part of the State party in respect of this communication (see para. 4 of the communication). 8. When confronted with the same types of facts, the Committee should reach the same types of conclusions. Its deliberations should not be confined to the legal arguments that are put forward, which the Committee is not obliged to heed or to regard as restricting its action. 9. It is impossible to explain why, on many occasions, the Committee confines itself to examining the legal arguments made by the parties, while in other cases, it rightly acts in accordance with the practices of global and regional international bodies and proceeds to undertake its own legal analysis of the facts which it considers to have been proven, even if the parties have not put forward the corresponding legal arguments. c 10. A correct approach to the present case from a legal standpoint would have led to the conclusion that, in addition to the findings arrived at by the Committee, the State has violated article 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in respect of Mr. Shikhmuradov. 11. I trust that the Committee will review its current inconsistent practices and define an approach that will allow it to duly perform the role with which it has been entrusted as a treaty body that monitors the fulfilment of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance with the procedures set out in the Covenant and the Optional Protocol. c See, for example, the following cases considered by the Human Rights Committee: communication No. 1390/2005, Koreba v. Belarus, Views adopted on 25 October 2010; communication No. 1225/2003, Eshonov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 22 July 2010, para. 8.3; communication No. 1206/2003, R.M. and S.I. v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, paras. 6.3 and 9.2, in which no violation was found; communication No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010; communication No. 1320/2004, Pimentel et al. v. Philippines, Views adopted on 19 March 2007, paras. 3 and 8.3; communication No. 1177/2003, Wenga and Shandwe v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, paras. 5.5, 6.5 and 9; communication No. 973/2001, Khalilova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 30 March 2005, para. 3.7; and communication No. 1044/2002, Shukurova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, para. 3. 11