CCPR/C/124/D/2892/2016 SIZO No. 1 and that no forensic examination was ordered. The Committee observes that no reason has been provided by the investigative body for not ordering a forensic examination from the start of the investigation. The forensic examination mentioned in the decision of the Bishkek city prosecutor’s office dated 30 July 2012 does not indicate a date, place or conclusion of the examination. As a result, it remains unclear whether such an investigation was in fact carried out at all. 7.7 The Committee observes further that, on the basis of the information available on file, it seems that when investigating the alleged torture of the author, the prosecutors did not question the author himself until September 2012. His questioning is mentioned for the first time in the decision of the Bishkek city prosecutor’s office dated 9 September 2012, the sixth of the eight decisions not to open a criminal case. At the same time, the police officers who had allegedly tortured the author were questioned from the outset of the investigation. The Committee also notes that the prosecution was not able to question the author’s cellmates from SIZO No. 1 because they could not be located. Taking into account the availability of registry records of detained persons in the detention facilities, and in the absence of further explanation from the State party, the Committee cannot accept this statement as a valid argument. Taking into account the foregoing observations, the Committee concludes that the investigation of the author’s allegations of torture was not impartial. It can also not be said that the investigation was adequate. 5 7.8 In addition, the Committee takes into account the fact, mentioned earlier, that the legislation of the State party links the possibility of lodging a civil claim for compensation in cases of torture to a finding of guilt of the perpetrators in criminal proceedings. In the present case, failure of the authorities to effectively investigate the author’s allegations deprived him of the possibility of seeking compensation for the alleged torture. 7.9 In the light of the above observations, the Committee finds that the author’s rights under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant have been violated by the State party. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 9. 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 requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the present case, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to take steps to: (a) conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if confirmed, prosecute, try and punish those responsible for the torture of the author; and (b) provide compensation to the author for the violations suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations in the future. 10. 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 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 when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, 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 present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State party. 5 Cf. Allaberdiev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015), para. 8.3; and Abromchik v. Belarus (CCPR/C/122/D/2228/2012), para. 10.4. 7