CCPR/C/120/D/2173/2012 take the responsibility to care for their life,13 and that criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by article 6 of the Covenant. 14 The Committee also recalls its general comment No. 31, in which it stated that, where investigations reveal violations of certain Covenant rights, such as those protected under articles 6 and 7, States parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Although the obligation to bring to justice those responsible for a violation of articles 6 and 7 is an obligation of means, not of result, 15 States parties have a duty to investigate, in good faith and in a prompt and thorough manner, all allegations of serious violations of the Covenant that are made against it and its authorities. 9.4 The Committee further recalls that the burden of proof in relation to factual questions cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information. 16 In that regard, the Committee notes, in particular, that the authorities refused to provide the author access to the case files of the investigation. 9.5 The Committee concludes that, in the light of the State party’s inability to rely on an adequate and conclusive investigation to rebut the author’s allegations that his son died as a result of torture that he sustained while in custody, and in the light of the information contained in the second autopsy report, which is consistent with the author’s version of the events, there has been a violation17 of articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant with regard to the rights of the author’s son.18 9.6 As to the author’s claims under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (1) and 7, of the Covenant that the State party failed in its obligation to properly investigate his son’s death and his own allegations of torture and to take appropriate remedial measures, the Committee recalls its consistent jurisprudence that criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 19 The Committee notes that the investigation into the allegations of torture and the subsequent death of Ismonboy Boboev was not carried out promptly and effectively, and while two suspects were identified, the investigation itself was suspended three times owing to the suspects’ “health issues”. No further explanations were provided in that respect. 20 The Committee also notes that the author requested information regarding the investigation into the torture and subsequent death of his son, and that such requests were denied. 21 It emphasizes that, when the case file 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 See communication No. 763/1997, Lantsova v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 26 March 2002, para. 9.2. See Sathasivam and Saraswathi v. Sri Lanka, para. 6.4; and communication No. 1275/2004, Umetaliev and Tashtanbekova v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 9.2. See communications Nos. 1917/2009-1918/2009, 1925/2009 and 1953/2010, Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Views adopted on 28 March 2013, para. 9.5. See communications No. 30/1978, Lewenhoff and de Bleier v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1982, para. 13.3; and No. 84/1981, Dermit v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 9.6. See communication No. 962/2001, Mulezi v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Views adopted on 8 July 2004, para. 5.4. See Sathasivam and Sarawathi v. Sri Lanka, para. 6.2; communications No. 1186/2003, Titiahonjo v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 26 October 2007, para. 6.2; No. 888/1999, Telitsina v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, para. 7.6; and Dermit v. Uruguay, para. 9.2. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14, and its general comment No. 31, para. 18. In Eshonov v. Uzbekistan, the Committee also noted the necessity of pursuing “investigations through an independent commission of inquiry or similar procedure” in cases of torture allegations, if “established investigative procedures are inadequate”. The Committee recalls the provisions of The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), according to which, “the participation of the family members or other close relatives of a deceased or disappeared person is an important element of an effective investigation”, and that the State parties “must enable all close relatives to participate effectively in the investigation, though without compromising its integrity” (para. 35). 7