CCPR/C/130/D/2451/2014 incumbent upon the State party to produce evidence showing that it is not responsible. 1 The Committee has held on several occasions that the burden of proof in such cases also cannot rest with the author of a communication alone, especially considering that frequently only the State party has access to the relevant information.2 In the absence of any observations by the State party to counter the author’s claims, the Committee must give due weight to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 9.6 In the light of this conclusion, the Committee considers that the facts as submitted also reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, given that the author’s conviction was based on his confessions and the confessions of his codefendant, which were relied upon by the courts irrespective of the fact that the author later retracted his confessions as having been obtained under torture and that on 10 January 2017, the police tried to obtain his forced confessions in another crime. 9.7 Having concluded that, in the present case, there has been a violation of article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claim under article 14 (1). 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 articles 7 and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. 11. 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 to: conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if confirmed, have those responsible prosecuted; take appropriate steps to review the author’s conviction; and provide the author with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. In this connection, the State party should, inter alia, review its legislation and practice with a view to ensuring that all material evidence, including evidence submitted for forensic examination, is preserved for an adequate period of time, even after a verdict has entered into force, so as to allow for appeals or reviews. 12. 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 and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable 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 Committee’s 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. 1 2 8 See, for example, Eshonov and Eshonov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003), para. 9.8; Siragev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/85/D/907/2000), para. 6.2; and Zheikov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/86/D/889/1999), para. 7.2. See, for example, Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991), para. 9.2; and Belier v. Uruguay, communication No. 30/1978, para. 13.3.