CCPR/C/116/D/2078/2011 refuted by the State party. The Committee recalls that once a complaint of ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate the complaint promptly and impartially.7 In the circumstances, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. Having thus come to a conclusion regarding a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, the Committee decides not to examine his claims under article 10 (1) and (2) separately. 7.3 The Committee further notes the author’s claims that his rights under article 9 (1) were also violated as he was unlawfully detained for four days, from 17 to 21 June 2006, in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Turkmenistan. He was held in detention until 21 June 2006 without being able to initiate any form of legal process through which his apprehension and the lawfulness of his detention could be reviewed and challenged and without his relatives being informed of his whereabouts, in violation of his rights under articles 53 and 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the absence of any pertinent explanation from the State party, the Committee decides to give due weight to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, it concludes that the facts as submitted disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 7.4 Regarding the author’s contention that although the hearings were formally announced as being public none of his friends or relatives or members of NGOs were allowed in the courtroom, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 in which it stated that all trials in criminal matters or related to a suit at law must in principle be conducted orally and publicly and that the publicity of hearings ensured the transparency of proceedings and thus provided an important safeguard for the interest of the individual and of society at large.8 In the present case, the author contends that his friends and relatives as well as members of the public, such as members of NGOs and representatives of embassies, were not allowed to be present. In the absence of any refutations by the State party, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts as submitted disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee finally notes the author’s claim that he was denied his right to see his family and relatives while in prison or to exchange correspondence with them. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which prisoners shall be allowed, under necessary supervision, to correspond with their families and reputable friends on a regular basis without interference,9 as stipulated by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which also provide for communication “by corresponding in writing” (rule 58). Noting that the State party has not specifically refuted the author’s allegations regarding his first two years of imprisonment, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted by the author reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 17 (1) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of articles 7, 9 (1), 14 (1) and 17 (1) of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with 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 7 8 9 6 See general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14. See general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 28. See communication No. 74/1980, Estrella v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1983, para. 9.2.