CCPR/C/112/D/1965/2010 Appendix [Original: Spanish] Individual opinion of Committee member Fabián Salvioli (partially dissenting) 1. I share the opinion of the Committee in relation to its conclusions in Monika v. Cameroon (communication No. 1965/2010). However, for the reasons that I set out below, I believe that the Committee should also have addressed the issue of a possible violation of article 6 of the Covenant, inasmuch as the author’s claims in this regard were clear and were not satisfactorily refuted by the State party. The death threats made following a brutal beating that resulted in the victim’s loss of an eye were never properly investigated; nor were the perpetrators prosecuted or punished. Given these parameters, the Committee should not have found the author’s claims with regard to a possible violation of article 6 to be inadmissible. 2. In view of the nature of this case, in which the victim has lost an eye as a result of violations of his human rights and has become indigent, the Committee should have stated that, as part of the redress to be provided, the State should place the proper rehabilitation measures (the necessary medical and/or psychological treatment) at the disposal of the author. This is a separate form of redress from the economic compensation to be provided for the violations suffered by the victim. The Committee should refine its policy on redress in individual cases in order to better fulfil its role of interpreting and applying the Covenant and the Optional Protocol thereto. 12