CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012 as part of a series of untrue accusations made against him, has tarnished his reputation, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant. 3.8 The author was the victim of arbitrary detention, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment because of opinions he held that were contrary to the interests of senior officials at Banque Congolaise and in the Government of the State party. The Committee has made known its position on the only conditions in which the freedom of expression may be restricted, namely those restrictions that are provided by law and that may be imposed only for one of the purposes set out in paragraphs 3 (a) and (b) of article 19. In the case at hand, the author was detained because of his ideas, but not for reasons allowed by the law, and the impediment to the author ’s freedom of expression under article 19 was not motivated by the need to guarantee respect for the rights or reputations of others, or for reasons of public order, but rather it was politically motivated by the incidents relating to the mismanagement at Banque Congolaise and involving the responsibility of senior officials at the bank and in the Government. 3.9 The author alleges that the violations of his fundamental rights constitute a violation of article 23, paragraph 1, insofar as the family dynamic has been severely affected over the long term. The principal harm suffered by the author ’s family is as follows: separation of the family; trauma inflicted upon the author that has had an impact on his family life; acts of intimidation and threats against him and his family; the State party’s smear campaign within its territory against the author and his family; and the uncertainty of the author ’s situation owing to his status as a refugee in the United Kingdom. 3.10 The author fears reprisals against his family for a number of reasons: (a) his family has already been the target of threats and intimidation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 9 and (b) ANR agents enjoy general impunity throughout the country. The author therefore requests that the Committee request the State party to implement measures to protect members of the author ’s family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo against any form of reprisal; and that it take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the protection of members of the author ’s family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo during the entire time that the Committee has the author’s communication under review. Lack of cooperation by the State party 4. By notes verbales dated 27 November 2012, 19 August 2013, 2 December 2013 and 4 February 2014, the State party was requested to submit to the Committee its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received and finds it regrettable that the State party has failed to provide any information with regard to admissibility or the substance of the author ’s claims. The Committee recalls that article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol obliges States parties to examine in good faith all allegations brought against them and to make available to the Committee all information at their disposal. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, to the extent that they are substantiated. 10 __________________ 9 10 8/17 The author refers in particular to his brother, who filed a complaint on his behalf, and to his father, who received visits at his home after the author had escaped. The author further maintains that his sister and brother-in-law have received threats and have since also left the Democratic Republic of the Congo to become refugees in a European country. Communication No. 2087/2011, Guneththige v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 30 March 2015, para. 4. GE.15-22873