CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.10 In assessing the compliance of State obligations under the Covenant in this respect, the Committee gives considerable weight to the findings of international courts when they have engaged in the collection and analysis of evidence, including witness testimonies. In the present case, the Committee takes note of the findings of the Inter-American Court and considers that the information provided to the Committee by the parties does not contain sufficient elements to contradict those findings and thus cannot lead the Committee to the conclusion that the domestic proceedings did not meet the State party’s obligations under the Covenant regarding a prompt, thorough and effective investigation. 9.7 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims regarding the insufficient information provided to her by the authorities in connection with the investigation of her husband’s death, in particular that she was not notified of the decision of 28 November 2006 to close the case and only found out when she visited the prosecutor’s office; that she requested the original file from the Public Prosecution Service on 24 May 2005 because she had received only parts of it subject to confidentiality requirements; and that she was not able to see the file in full until 2007. The Committee considers, however, that the information provided by the author is not detailed enough, particularly in connection with the notification of the above-mentioned decision (paras. 2.9, 6.16 and 7.4), to conclude that the family was not kept sufficiently informed. 9.8. Based on the elements described above, the Committee considers that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the State party has violated the rights of the author, her husband and her son under articles 6 (1) and 7, read together with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, in connection with the investigation of the attack in which her husband was killed and she and her son were injured. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is therefore of the view that the facts before it do not disclose violations of the author’s rights under the Covenant. 10 12 General comment No. 31 (1980) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 15.