CCPR/C/118/D/2127/2011 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 Concerning the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that according to the information submitted by the author, and not objected to by the State party, all available domestic remedies, including appeals to the Supreme Court, have been exhausted. The Committee therefore considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b), of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 6 (1), 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 9 (1) and 19 of the Covenant for purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the author’s claims admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the State party is responsible for the death of his father, who was detained by the authorities on 14 April 2007, allegedly for having committed an administrative offence, beaten by police officers, repeatedly cried out that he feared for his life and was then found dead in the detention cell of the Naryn city Department of Internal Affairs the next day. The Committee also notes the uncontested evidence in the reports on the forensic medical examination, which revealed haemorrhaging and moderate swelling in Mr. Akunov’s brain caused by the impact of a hard object, and haemorrhaging in the chest cavity and lungs. External injuries established on Mr. Akunov’s body included abrasions and bruises to his torso (especially around the kidneys), shoulders, elbows, knees, fingers and toes. 8.3 The Committee also notes the author’s claims that the State party failed to take measures to protect his father from torture and the arbitrary deprivation of his life, as well as to conduct a prompt, impartial, thorough and effective investigation of the circumstances leading to his death in custody. 8.4 In that context, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life and its jurisprudence, according to which by arresting and detaining an individual, a State party takes the responsibility to care for his or her life. 18 It further recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant that where investigations reveal violations of certain Covenant rights, such as those protected under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, States parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. 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 made against it and its authorities. 8.5 The Committee also recalls that the burden of proof in relation to factual questions, especially in death in custody cases, cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, 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. 19 18 19 12 See, communication No. 763/1997, Lantsova v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 26 March 2002, para. 9.2. See, communications No. 30/1978, Bleier v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1982, para. 13.3, and No. 84/1981, Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 9.6.