CCPR/C/116/D/2044/2011 copy of a decision concerning the grounds for their involuntary hospitalization upon apprehension on 10 October 2006. Consequently, the authors had to wait until after their release before becoming aware of the possibility of, and actually pursuing, such an appeal. In the Committee’s view, the authors’ right to challenge their detention was rendered ineffective by the State party’s failure to serve the committal order on them prior to or during the initial period of their detention.15 Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee finds a violation of article 9 (4) of the Covenant. 7.10 As regards the authors’ claim under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, the Committee has to evaluate whether the forced hospitalization amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee observes that, while involuntary hospitalization may be applied as a measure of last resort and, at times, may be justified to protect the life and health of individuals, illegal and arbitrary committal to hospital may cause mental and physical suffering and thus amount to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, with the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee further observes that involuntary hospitalization or forced treatment applied in order to punish or humiliate is contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 7.11 The Committee notes the State party’s submission in the present case and the findings of the Samarkand City Court that the authors’ committal to the psychiatric hospital was the result of their “inadequate behaviour” as they “disturbed the work” of the President of the Quarter’s Committee by their numerous complaints. The Committee also reiterates its conclusion that the authors’ committal to the psychiatric hospital was a result of an arbitrary and illegal decision and had no proper medical justification (see paras. 7.7 and 7.8 above). On the basis of available evidence, the Committee therefore concludes that the decision to commit authors to the psychiatric hospital appeared to be driven by the desire to punish or humiliate the authors for exercising their right to complain and for expressing their views in relation to the work of Mr. Sh. 7.12 Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that, in the present case, the authors’ involuntary hospitalization for nine days for allegedly disturbing the work of the President of the Quarter’s Committee with their numerous complaints amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. 7.13 In the light of the finding of the violation of articles 9 (1) and (4) and 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), the Committee will not examine separately the authors’ claims under articles 14 (1) and 19 of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State party has violated the authors’ rights under articles 9 (1) and (4) and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors 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 an impartial, effective and thorough investigation concerning the authors’ apprehension on 10 October 2006 and their unlawful hospitalization until 19 October 2006 in the city’s psychiatric hospital, and prosecute and punish appropriately those responsible; and (b) provide the authors with adequate compensation and reimbursement of any legal costs incurred by the authors. The State party is also under the obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. 15 10 See Fijalkowska v. Poland, para. 8.4.