CCPR/C/131/D/2772/2016 author’s arrest and detention were arbitrary and that the rights guaranteed to the author under article 9 of the Covenant have been violated.16 6.6 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that his rights under articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), were violated, given the lack of an effective remedy against these violations. In this case, more than six years have passed since the criminal complaint against D.C. for torture and arbitrary arrest and detention was submitted to the general prosecution service on 20 December 2014 without a prompt and immediate investigation having been carried out. Subsequently, on 27 February 2015, the author submitted a request to bring a private prosecution against H.K. and D.C. for torture and arbitrary arrest and detention to Bukavu Tribunal de Grande Instance, which, despite the author’s insistence, is still under investigation at first instance. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any explanation for the lack of measures to remedy the alleged violations and concludes that the State party has violated the author’s rights under articles 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 6.7 The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that he was denied access to a lawyer for the duration of his detention at the premises of the National Intelligence Agency, during the rounds of questioning and confrontations to which he was subjected, following which he was forced to sign documents without his being allowed to read them beforehand, and during the hearing at the District Court on 27 January 2015, at which a ruling on his pretrial detention was to be issued. Furthermore, he was not given full access to the documents necessary to effectively challenge the charges against him. In the absence of a rebuttal from the State party, the Committee considers that these restrictions constitute a violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, insofar as the author was not afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence or to communicate with his counsel during the different stages of the proceedings. 6.8 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that, during his arbitrary detention, he was tortured by an officer of the National Intelligence Agency and forced to sign confessions. These confessions, the author claims, were used as a basis for arbitrarily depriving him of his liberty, in violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. Considering the Committee’s findings regarding the violation under article 7 of the Covenant, the State party’s failure to investigate the allegations of torture made by the author and the fact that the author’s confessions were admitted as evidence and used to justify his pretrial detention, the Committee considers that the State party has violated the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant.17 6.9 Lastly, the Committee notes that the author was arrested at his home by officers of the National Intelligence Agency, who broke in, and that, after the author was released on bail, further attempts were made to intimidate him and his family in the street and at their home. The Committee also notes that, after having been subjected to acts of intimidation and threats, the author was forced to change his residence in August 2015. The Committee recalls that the arbitrary separation of the author from the rest of his family and the detrimental effect on their family life may raise questions under article 17 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 23 (1). In the absence of observations from the State party and taking into account all the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that these facts constitute arbitrary and unlawful interference with the author’s privacy, home and family. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party has violated the author’s rights under article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 23 of the Covenant. 18 7. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of articles 7 and 9, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and of article 14 (3) (b) and (g), and article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 23 of the Covenant. 8. 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 provision requires that States parties make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the present case, 16 17 18 GE.21-09615 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014). Pandey v. Nepal (CCPR/C/124/D/2413/2014), para. 8.9; and Bazarov v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/118/D/2187/2012), para. 6.4. Lumbala Tshidika v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012), para. 6.7. 9