CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 Furthermore, the complaint of torture lodged by the author’s father with the investigative court apparently received no response. In addition, the proceedings that were eventually initiated following the author’s subsequent complaint before Court of Investigation No. 2 of Bilbao were stayed on two occasions. Finally, according to the author’s statement – which has not been refuted by the State party – his lawyer was not notified of three hearings at which five Guardia Civil officers, the forensic doctors who examined the author and his designated lawyer all gave testimony. 9.8 The Committee recalls its general comments No. 20 and No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, as well as its settled jurisprudence, according to which complaints of ill-treatment must be investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially by the competent authorities and appropriate action must be taken against those found guilty. 25 According to the Committee, given the difficulty of proving the occurrence of torture and ill-treatment when they do not leave physical marks, as in the author’s case, the investigation of such acts should be exhaustive. Furthermore, all physical or psychological harm inflicted on a person in detention – and particularly under an incommunicado regime – gives rise to an important presumption of fact, since the burden of proof must not rest solely on the author.26 Consequently, and in the light of the circumstances of the present case, the Committee is of the view that the author did not enjoy an effective remedy for securing an investigation into his treatment during his detention from 6 to 11 December 2007 in violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 7 and a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires that full reparation be made to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Therefore, the State party should: (a) conduct an impartial, effective and complete investigation into the facts of this case and prosecute and punish those responsible; and (b) provide adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future. In this connection, the Committee recalls that the State party should take the necessary measures, including measures of a legislative nature, to put an end to the incommunicado detention regime. 27 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 or not 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 or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in the event that a violation is established, the Committee wishes to receive information from the State party, within 180 days, concerning the measures taken to give effect to these Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and ensure that they are widely disseminated. 25 26 27 GE.19-13559 See, for example, Abromchik v. Belarus (CCPR/C/122/D/2228/2012), para. 10.4, and Benítez Gamarra v. Paraguay (CCPR/C/104/D/1829/2008), para. 7.5. See Achabal Puertas v. Spain, para. 8.6; European Court of Human Rights, application No. 40351/05, Beristain Ukar v. Spain, judgment of 8 March 2011, para. 39. CCPR/C/ESP/CO/6, para. 17; CCPR/C/ESP/CO/5, para. 14 and Achabal Puertas v. Spain, para. 10. 13