CCPR/C/128/D/2789/2016 constitutes a violation of article 6 of the Covenant.24 Referring to its general comment No. 32, the Committee recalls that in cases of trials leading to the imposition of the death penalty scrupulous respect of the guarantees of fair trial is particularly important. 25 In addition, in its general comment No. 36, the Committee also noted that violation of the fair trial guarantees provided for in article 14 of the Covenant in proceedings resulting in the imposition of the death penalty would render the sentence arbitrary in nature, and in violation of article 6 of the Covenant. Such violations might involve failure to respect the presumption of innocence, which may manifest itself in the accused being placed in a cage or handcuffed during the trial.26 In the light of the Committee’s findings of a violation of article 14 (2) of the Covenant, with respect to failure to respect the presumption of innocence, the Committee concludes that the final sentence of death and the subsequent execution of Mr. Yakovitsky did not meet the requirements of article 14 and that, as a result, his right to life under article 6 of the Covenant was also violated. 9. 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 the rights of the author’s father under articles 6, 9 (3) and 14 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee also concludes that by not respecting its request for interim measures, the State party violated its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 10. 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. The State party is also obligated, inter alia, to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 11. 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 and 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 languages of the State party. 24 25 26 General comment No. 32, para. 59. See also Levy v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/64/D/719/1996), para. 7.3; Kurbanov v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/79/D/1096/2002), para. 7.7; Shukurova v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/86/D/1044/2002), para. 8.6; Idieva v. Tajikistan, para. 9.7; Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/101/D/1304/2004), para. 9.11; Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/102/D/1545/2007), para. 6.5; and Grunov and Grunova v. Belarus (CCPR/C/123/D/2375/2014-CCPR/C/123/D/2690/2015), para. 8.6. General comment No. 32, para. 59. General comment No. 36, para. 41. 9