CCPR/C/118/D/2127/2011 8.6 The Committee observes, with reference to the conclusions of the criminal investigation carried out by the Kyrgyz authorities, that the State party has explained that Mr. Akunov committed suicide by hanging himself and that abrasions and bruises on the side of his body that was “in contact with the surrounding objects” could have been caused by convulsions while hanging himself on the iron bar of his cell. Furthermore, the State party claimed that the investigation did not establish any evidence confirming that Mr. Akunov was subjected to beatings by police officers. The Committee observes, however, that the explanation put forward by the State party does not plausibly address a number of critical issues raised in the present communication, such as the nature and extent of the injuries established on Mr. Akunov’s body, according to the report of the forensic medicine evidence board; the findings of the State Centre of Forensic Examination that Mr. Akunov’s clothes were damaged owing to friction or his being dragged along the ground; the testimonies of witnesses, according to which Mr. Akunov repeatedly cried out, while being beaten outside the Naryn city Department of Internal Affairs, that the police would kill him and his calls for help; and a lack of any apparent motive for suicide, given the fact that the day before his death he was determined to pursue his civic activism by requesting a meeting with the authorities to discuss the possibility of organizing political protests in Naryn. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any information on the thoroughness of the inquiries that have been undertaken to address those issues. The Committee further notes that the State party has failed to explain why none of the police officers involved in assaulting Mr. Akunov on 14 April 2007 outside the Naryn city Department of Internal Affairs has ever been investigated as a suspect, despite the author’s repeated requests to initiate a criminal case against them and the fact that all four of them have been identified by him by name. 8.7 The Committee therefore considers that the above-mentioned factors, taken together and in the absence of persuasive arguments by the State party rebutting the author’s suggestion that his father was tortured and arbitrarily killed while in custody, lead it to conclude that the State party is responsible for violating Mr. Akunov’s rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 20 Furthermore, the Committee considers that the abovementioned factors, taken together, also lead it to conclude that the State party’s investigation into the allegations of torture and the highly suspicious circumstances of Mr. Akunov’s death while in State custody, which resulted in the imposition of a suspended sentence on B.K. for failing to prevent Mr. Akunov’s alleged suicide, were inadequate, falling short of the State party’s obligations under articles 6 (1) and 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 8.8 In the Committee’s view, therefore, there has been a violation of articles 6 (1) and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. In view of that finding, the Committee will not consider whether in the circumstances of the case there was also a separate violation of Mr. Akunov’s rights under articles 9 and 19 of the Covenant. 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 articles 6 (1) and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author, on his own behalf and on behalf of his deceased father with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to 20 See communications No. 1436/2005, Sathasivam and Saraswathi v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 8 July 2008, para. 6.2; No. 1186/2003, Titiahonjo v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 26 October 2007, para. 6.2; No. 888/1999, Telitsina v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, para. 7.6; and Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, para. 9.2. 13