CCPR/C/119/D/2586/2015 Mr. Zakharenko and that it is highly likely that he was the victim of an extrajudicial killing committed by State officials. 14 It notes that the State party has not submitted any information to refute the detailed allegations of the authors concerning the time of the abduction and the alleged murder, the weapon used, the identity of the suspected killer and the involvement of State officials in the act. Under those circumstances, due weight must be given to the allegations and it must be assumed that the events occurred as described by the authors.15 Consequently, the Committee finds a violation by the State party of the rights of Mr. Zakharenko under articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which States must establish appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations (para. 15), and that criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.16 In the present case, the Committee observes that the numerous complaints filed by the authors have not led to specific information concerning the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Zakharenko, nor to the arrest or prosecution of a single perpetrator. The Committee further observes not only the failure of the State to conduct a proper investigation but also the failure to explain at which stage the investigation proceedings are, 16 years after the disappearance of Mr. Zakharenko. In the absence of an explanation of the lack of progress in the investigation by the State party, and in view of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the State party has also violated its obligations under articles 6, 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, for failure to properly investigate and take appropriate remedial action regarding the disappearance of Mr. Zakharenko. 7.4 The Committee also accepts the authors’ uncontested claim that the failure of the State party to promptly and effectively investigate the disappearance of Mr. Zakharenko has significantly exacerbated their emotional stress and caused them mental suffering, resulting in a violation of their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 17 7.5 In view of these conclusions, the Committee decides not to examine separately the authors’ claims relating to the violation of Mr. Zakharenko under articles 10 and 26 of the Covenant. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is therefore of the view that the facts as submitted before the Committee reveal a violation by Belarus of Mr. Zakharenko’s rights under articles 6, 7 and 9, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and of the authors’ rights under article 7 of Covenant. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors 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: (a) to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the authors’ allegations and provide adequate information about the results of its inquiries; if the allegations are confirmed, (b) to prosecute, try and punish the perpetrators; and (c) to provide adequate compensation to the authors for the violations suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of similar violations 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 14 15 16 17 6 See paragraph 3.1 above. See communication No. 1058/2002, Vargas v. Peru, Views adopted on 26 October 2005, para. 6.1. See also communications No. 1619/2007, Pestaño v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 23 March 2010, para. 7.2; No. 1447/2006, Amirov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 2 April 2009, para. 11.2; No. 1436/2005, Sathasivam and Saraswathi v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 8 July 2008, para. 6.4; and No. 1820/2008 (see footnote 4 above), para. 8.3. See communications No. 1159/2003, Sankara v. Burkina Faso, Views adopted on 28 March 2006, para. 12.2; and No. 2185/2012, Dakhal et al. v. Nepal, Views adopted on 17 March 2017, para. 11.8.