CCPR/C/128/D/2707/2015 Covenant.6 The Committee also recalls its general comment No. 31, in which it stated that, where investigations revealed violations of certain Covenant rights, such as those protected under articles 6 and 7, States parties must ensure that those responsible were 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,7 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 them and their authorities. 8.4 The Committee further recalls that the burden of proof concerning 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. 8 In that regard, the Committee notes, in particular, the author’s claim, which remained uncontested by the State party, that her son’s blood test was destroyed by the police, which made it impossible to identify the blood on his clothes. It also notes the author’s uncontested statement that she was given limited access to the case files of the investigation and no access to the documents concluding that her son had suffered from heart disease.9 The Committee notes, in this regard, that, on the contrary, the author submitted for re-examination the results of her son’s medical examination carried out shortly before his death, which indicated that he had been in good health. 8.5 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 her son died as a result of the torture he suffered while in custody, and in the absence of any further information of pertinence, the facts as submitted reveal a violation by the State party of articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant with regard to the rights of the author’s son. 8.6 As regards 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 her son’s death and her own claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), 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. 10 The Committee notes that the investigation into the allegations of torture and the subsequent death of the author’s son cannot be seen as having been carried out promptly and effectively, and that it was suspended several times.11 The Committee also notes the author’s uncontested claim that she was provided with very little information regarding the investigation into the torture and subsequent death of her son and that she was not provided with the documents concluding that her son had suffered from a heart decease. The Committee recalls that, when a case file is inaccessible to the victim’s close relatives, the investigation itself cannot be regarded as an effective one, capable of leading to the identification and punishment of 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sathasivam and Saraswathi v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/93/D/1436/2005), para. 6.4; Umetaliev and Tashtanbekova v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/94/D/1275/2004), para. 9.2; and Boboev v. Tajikistan, para. 9.3. Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/107/D/1917/2009, 1918/2009, 1925/2009 and 1953/2010), para. 9.5; and Boboev v. Tajikistan, para. 9.3. 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; and Boboev v. Tajikistan, para. 9.4. 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 State parties “must enable all close relatives to participate effectively in the investigation, though without compromising its integrity” (para. 35). 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; and Boboev v. Tajikistan, para. 9.6. 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 allegations of torture, if established investigative procedures were inadequate (para. 9.6). 7