CCPR/C/131/D/2772/2016 affected his career, his physical and mental health, and his family life. The author therefore considers that the State party has violated his rights under article 17 of the Covenant. 3.8 Lastly, the author claims a violation of article 23 of the Covenant because the offences, attacks and threats carried out against him and his family have had a seriously detrimental effect on his family and his family life. First of all, his family’s finances were seriously affected by his being absent for more than six months. Secondly, his prolonged arbitrary detention caused the break-up of the family unit and harmed the mental health of his family members. Lastly, the harm done to the author’s mental health and the threats and attacks perpetrated at his home and directly against his family created a climate of insecurity, fear and intimidation that prompted the family to move to another neighbourhood in August 2015. 3.9 The author requests appropriate reparation, including financial compensation for the material and non-material harm caused; physical, psychological, social and financial rehabilitation; measures of satisfaction; and guarantees of non-repetition accompanied by a public apology to the victim. Lack of cooperation by the State party 4. On 7 June 2016, 25 January 2017, 3 July 2017 and 14 September 2018, the Committee requested the State party to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or the substance of the author’s claims. It recalls that article 4 (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 the 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. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 The Committee must first ascertain, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the author’s case has been examined by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which rendered an opinion on 3 September 2015. As the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had already concluded its consideration of the case before the present communication was submitted to the Committee, the Committee will not address the issue of whether consideration of a case by the Working Group is another procedure of international investigation or settlement under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.11 Consequently, the Committee considers that there are no obstacles to the admissibility of the communication under this provision. 5.3 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls, firstly, that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 12 The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence according to which the author must exhaust, for the purpose of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, all judicial or administrative remedies that offer him or her a reasonable prospect of redress.13 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the admissibility of any of the claims submitted. In addition, it takes note of the information and supporting documents provided by the author regarding the complaints and requests that he filed with various authorities of the State party, none of which appears to have led to an investigation. The Committee notes that six years have elapsed since 27 February 2015, the 11 12 13 GE.21-09615 Cedeño v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010), para. 6.2. Boudjemai v. Algeria (CCPR/C/107/D/1791/2008), para. 7.4. Patiño v. Panama (CCPR/C/52/D/437/1990), para. 5.2. 7