CCPR/C/126/D/2699/2015 by the courts as constituting a defence strategy (see paras. 6.1 and 6.2). The State party also noted that an investigator had conducted an inquiry into the author’s allegations of illtreatment by the police, but refused to open a criminal case in the absence of a corpus delicti, because when interrogated the police officers in question denied inflicting violence against the author. 9.4 The Committee considers that, in the present case, the State party has not demonstrated with reliable evidence that no police officer was involved in the author’s illtreatment and bodily injuries and that the author’s health was not satisfactory before his apprehension by the police. It also considers that the State party has failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that its authorities addressed the author’s allegations of torture and illtreatment in a meaningful way. 9.5 The Committee recalls that the burden of proof in regard to torture or ill-treatment cannot rest alone on the author of a communication, especially in view of the fact that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information. The State party has the duty 6 to conduct a prompt, effective and independent investigation 7 of all credible allegations of violations of article 7 of the Covenant. Under those circumstances, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts as presented by the author reveal a violation of his rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 9.6 The Committee also notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 14 (3) (g) have been violated because he confessed guilt for a crime under duress and his forced confessions served as the basis for his subsequent conviction. The State party has not refuted these allegations directly; instead, it has denied the author’s torture allegations in general. In the absence of any other information or argumentation of pertinence on file, and in the light of the conclusion of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee concludes that the fact under consideration also amounts to a violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (g). 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. 11. 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. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to take appropriate steps to: (a) conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if confirmed, prosecute, try and punish those responsible; (b) release the author, quash the author’s trial court verdicts and, if necessary, conduct a new trial with all fair trial guarantees; and (c) provide adequate compensation to the author for the violations suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take all necessary steps to prevent the occurrence of similar violations in the future. 12. 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. 6 7 10 General comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 15. General comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14.