proceedings.7 In the circumstances of the case, and in the absence of pertinent explanations from the State party, the Committee considers that the legal assistance did not meet the required threshold of effectiveness. Therefore, the information before the Committee discloses a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (b) and (d). characterized as having the institutional objectivity and impartiality necessary to be considered an “officer authorized to exercise judicial power” within the meaning of article 9, paragraph 3. The Committee therefore concludes that there has been a violation of this provision. 7.8 The Committee has considered the author’s claim, which is made out in detail, that her deprivation of liberty by persons acting in an official capacity from 28 December 1998 to 6 February 1999 without charges and the subsequent failure of the State party to investigate these acts. It recalls that article 9, paragraph 1, is applicable to all forms of deprivation of liberty, 10 and considers that in the above circumstances and in the absence of pertinent explanation from the State party, the facts as submitted amount to an unlawful deprivation of liberty in violation of article 9, paragraph 1. 7.5 The Committee has noted the author’s claim that the trial of her sons was unfair, since the court did not act impartially and independently (paras. 2.5 and 2.6 above). It also notes the author’s contention that the trial of her sons was largely held in camera and that none of the witnesses were present in the court room despite numerous requests to this effect from all eight co-defendants, including Uigun and Oibek Ruzmetov. The judge denied these requests, without giving any reasons. In the absence of any pertinent State party information, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (e), of the Covenant. 7.9 The Committee considers that in the absence of any explanation from the State party, the search of the author’s house without warrant on 28 December 1998 (para. 2.1 above), amounts to a violation of article 17. 7.6 The Committee recalls8 that the imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of the Covenant have not been respected constitutes a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. In the present case, the death sentences on Uigun and Oibek Ruzmetov was passed in violation of the right to a fair trial set out in article 14 of the Covenant, and was thus also in breach of article 6. 7.10 The Committee has noted the author’s claim that the State party authorities ignored her requests for information and systematically refused to reveal her sons’ situation or whereabouts. The Committee understands the continued anguish and mental stress caused to the author, as the mother of the condemned prisoners, by the persisting uncertainty of the circumstances that led to their execution, as well as the location of their gravesite. The secrecy surrounding the date of execution, and failure to disclose the place of burial have the effect of intimidating or punishing families by intentionally leaving them in a state of uncertainty and mental distress. The Committee considers that the authorities’ failure to notify the author of the execution of her sons, amounts to inhuman treatment, in violation of article 7.11 7.7 The Committee notes that the author’s sons’ pretrial detention was approved by the public prosecutor, and that there was no subsequent judicial review of the lawfulness of detention until they were brought before a court and sentenced on 24 July 1999 (Uigun) and 29 July 1999 (Oibek). The Committee observes that article 9, paragraph 3, is intended to bring the detention of a person charged with a criminal offence under judicial control and recalls that it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power, that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with. 9 In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee is not satisfied that the public prosecutor may be 7.11 The Committee considers that in the absence of any explanation from the State party, the author’s exposure, handcuffed and naked, to her son, Uigun, on 5 January 1999 (para. 2.3 above), in itself amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to article 7 and constitutes a violation thereof. 7 Aliev v. Ukraine, communication No. 781/1997, Views adopted on 7 August 2003, para. 7.3, Robinson v. Jamaica, communication No. 223/1987, Views adopted on 30 March 1989, para. 10.3, and Brown v. Jamaica, communication No. 775/1997, Views adopted on 23 March 1999, para. 6.6. 8 Levy v. Jamaica, communication No. 719/1996, Views adopted on 3 November 1998, para. 7.3, Marshall v. Jamaica, communication No. 730/1996, Views adopted on 3 November 1998, para. 6.6. See also general comment No. 6 on article 6, para. 7. 9 Communication No. 521/1992, Kulomin v. Hungary, Views adopted on 22 March 1996, para. 11.3, Platonov v. Russian Federation, communication No. 1218/2003, Views adopted on 1 November 2005, para. 7.2. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 10 General comment No. 8 on article 9, para. 1. Communication No. 886/1999, Bondarenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 3 April 2003, para. 9.4, communication No. 887/1999, Lyashkevich v. Belarus, Views adopted on April 2003, para. 9.2, communication No. 973/2001, Khaliliov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 30 March 2005, para. 7.7. 11 58