CCPR/C/112/D/1965/2010 Consideration of the merits 12.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 12.2 The Committee took note of the authors’ claim that, on 29 August 2002, he had an appointment with the Government delegate heading the Limbe Urban Council, who, along with three additional municipality officers, administered severe blows to his eyes and face, causing severe bleeding and permanent damage to his left eye. The author has further alleged that, during his stay at the hospital, he received death threats from the Government delegate and that, on 25 October 2002, a municipal police and a gendarmerie officer assaulted, arrested and detained him on the Limbe Hospital premises. 12.3 The Committee notes that the State party has merely asserted that the facts are contested, as while the author has claimed that he was the victim of an assault, the Government delegate has maintained that he was the victim of an attempted murder by the author. The Committee considers, however, that the State party has not rebutted the author’s claim that he was severely assaulted by an agent of the State party’s Government, which caused him permanent loss of sight with his left eye, and that such acts remained unpunished. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which 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.10 It further recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004), which lays down that where investigations reveal violations of certain Covenant rights, States parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.11 12.4 In the present case, the State party has failed to investigate effectively the responsibility of those Government officials suspected of the direct commission of the offences on 29 August 2002, and has given no explanation as to why an investigation was only commenced in February 2011, that is, nine years after the events complained about by the author took place, and which were first brought to the attention of the relevant authorities through the author’s complaints addressed to the prosecutorial authorities on 17 September and 3 October 2002. While the State party has referred to the pending and overdue judicial investigations opened in February 2011, it has not submitted any information as to the results of such investigation, nor has it prosecuted anyone or explained the reasons for the lack of significant progress in this case before the courts. 12.5 In the light of the above, the Committee is of the view that the remedies relied upon by the State party have been unreasonably prolonged, and that the State party must be held to be in breach of article 7, read alone, and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, for failure to promptly investigate the facts. 12.6 With regard to the alleged violation of article 9, the Committee took note of the author’s claim that his right to security was breached on account of his assault by agents of the State party’s Government on 29 August 2002, but considers that this part of the communication is subsumed under the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant, which has been disposed of. 10 11 10 See communications No. 1619/2007, Pestaño v. Philippines, Views adopted on 23 March 2010, para. 7.2; No. 1447/2006, Amirov and Amirova v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 2 April 2009, para. 11.2; and No. 1436/2005, Sathasivam and Saraswathi v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 8 July 2008, para. 6.4. General comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, para. 18.