CCPR/C/130/D/3000/2017 denies responsibility for the injuries in question by suggesting that they could have been inflicted after the release of the author from the State Committee facility. The State party acknowledges, however, the existence of such injuries, confirmed by a medical expert on 10 January 2011 and later confirmed by a forensic medical expert panel examination (see para. 2.4),5 but provides no plausible explanation as to the exact origin of the injuries in question. 7.3 The Committee recalls that a State party is responsible for the security of any person it holds in detention and that, when an individual in detention shows signs of injury, it is incumbent upon the State party to produce evidence showing that it is not responsible for such injury.6 The Committee has held on several occasions that the burden of proof in such cases cannot rest with the author of a communication alone, especially considering that frequently only the State party has access to the relevant information.7 In the absence of any plausible evidence from the State party to counter the claims made by the author concerning his ill-treatment by State Committee officers and the evidence he produced in support of the claims, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s detailed allegations of the cause of his injuries. The Committee therefore decides that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 7.4 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s claims of torture, 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 under article 7 of the Covenant.8 The Committee also recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially so as to make the remedy effective. 9 7.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that, on 4 January 2011, the author lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General claiming to have been subjected to torture; he underwent a medical examination of his injuries on the same day and was admitted for inpatient medical treatment in the Scientific Research Centre for Traumatology and Orthopaedics in Bishkek. The Committee notes that the first action by the authorities was taken on 6 January 2011, when a forensic medical examination of the author’s injuries was ordered. The first investigation was concluded on 14 February 2011. The Committee notes, however, the negative effect on the promptness and effectiveness of the criminal investigation that most probably resulted from the fact that the author had to repeatedly challenge premature and ill-founded decisions to have the investigation closed, leading the courts to repeatedly quash those decisions (see paras. 2.7–2.8 and 2.11). Despite numerous appeals to the Prosecutor General and to the courts, in which the author asked for concrete investigative steps to be taken, many of his requests concerning an effective and thorough investigation remained unanswered, in particular his request that certain witnesses be questioned and a confrontation be arranged between himself and the State Committee officers who had participated in his questioning, whom he named. 7.6 The Committee notes that the decision dated 14 February 2011 not to open a criminal case established that the author’s injuries had been inflicted by the officers who arrested him, given that they had to use force because the author resisted arrest (see para. 2.6). The decision concluded that the force used by the officers was necessary, without, however, specifying in what manner the author was resisting arrest and what exact means of restraint were used on him. Subsequent investigations departed from that conclusion, noting that the author had not resisted arrest and that force had not been used against him either at the stage of arrest or during his detention (see para. 2.9). None of the eight successive investigations attempted to 5 6 7 8 9 In medical expert report No. 12 of 10 January 2011, it was concluded that the author had had burns on his back, contusions of the lumbar area and chest and contusions and abrasions of the limbs and torso. See, for example, Eshonov and Eshonov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003), para. 9.8; Siragev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/85/D/907/2000), para. 6.2; and Zheikov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/86/D/889/1999), para. 7.2. See, for example, Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991), para. 9.2; and Human Rights Committee, Bleier v. Uruguay, communication No. 30/1978, para. 13.3. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14; and general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14; and, for example, Neporozhnev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/116/D/1941/2010), para. 8.4. 7