CCPR/C/112/D/1972/2010 absence of any explanation by the State party for the unequal access of the prosecution and the defence to the hearing, the Committee concludes that the State party infringed the principle of equality of arms on this occasion, in violation of the author’s right under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 9.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that the commutation of his death sentence into life imprisonment for a crime committed at a time when life imprisonment was not provided by law violated article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. According to article 15, paragraph 1, last sentence, of the Covenant, if, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby. In the present case, the Committee notes that the penalty of life imprisonment established by the Law of 10 February 1998 superseded the death penalty, a penalty which is more severe than life imprisonment. Furthermore, for some of the offences of which the author was convicted, such as murder, there were no subsequent provisions made by law for the imposition of any lighter penalty from which the author could benefit, other than the above-mentioned amendment on life imprisonment. In such circumstances, the Committee cannot conclude that the State party, by substituting life imprisonment for capital punishment for the crimes of which the author was convicted, has violated the author’s rights under article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.21 10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose violations of Mr. Quliyev’s rights under articles 10 (para. 1) and article 14 (para. 1) of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide Mr. Quliyev with an effective remedy, including adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to avoid similar violations in the future. 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 or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, 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 Committee’s Views, and to have them translated into the official language of the State party and widely distributed. 21 14 See communications No. 1425/2005, Marz v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 21 October 2009, paras. 6.5 and 6.6, and No. 1346/2005, Tofanyuk v. Ukraine, Views adopted on 20 October 2010, para. 11.3.