Advance unedited version CCPR/C/130/D/2432/2014 6.4 The Committee further notes the authors’ claims under article 7, read alone, and in conjunction with article 2(3) of the Covenant as they relate to Ms. T. P.. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate these claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee considers the authors have sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, their claims of violations of rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2(3) of the Covenant as they relate to Mr. Oleg Boyarkin. The Committee declares these claims admissible and proceeds with their consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee first notes the author’s claims that Oleg Boyarkin was tortured for two days, starting from 10 June 2009, and subsequently, T. P. was tortured on 11 June 2009, in order to extract a confession from Oleg Boyarkin for crimes he claims he did not commit. The Committee notes that as a result, Mr. Boyarkin confessed and signed a statement admitting guilt. The Committee further notes that, subsequently, this confession was retained and used as evidence against him in court, despite his numerous retractions and complaints of torture, including in court during the trial, and during the cassation appeal. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s failure to provide detailed explanations regarding the treatment the author was subjected to at the early stages of detention and during the interrogation, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations6. 7.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s torture claims, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violation of human rights, such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant.7 The Committee notes that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of torture was carried out promptly or effectively, despite detailed reports from the authors, witness statements, and a medical certificate indicating injuries. The Committee notes that the State party does not refute the claim that the authors were not questioned with respect to their torture allegations, and that no additional examinations were conducted. Instead of providing detailed information regarding the investigations into torture claims made by the author, the State party merely submits that Mr. Boyarkin is trying to avoid responsibility 8. The Committee also notes that the court used Mr. Boyarkin’s confession in finding him guilty, despite his contention, made during the trial hearings, that he was tortured and his confessions were forced. Accordingly, in these circumstances as described, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of Mr. Boyarkin’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2(3) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the rights of Mr. Boyarkin under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2(3), of the Covenant. 9. 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 to, inter alia, a) conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation into the 6 7 8 4 The Committee notes the absence of any information regarding the State party’s position on the allegations that were brought forward by T. P.. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, para. 14; and its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18. The Committee notes that the State party also provided information about Mr. Boyarkin’s previous conviction, which is not related to the claims made in the present communication.