Consideration of the merits Mr. Askarov’ s, and the Davlatov brothers’ rights under article 10, of the Covenant. 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 Mr. Karimov and Mr. Nursatov claim that the alleged victims’ presumption of innocence was violated, as in court they were placed in a metal cage and were handcuffed. A high ranked official publicly affirmed at the beginning of the trial that their handcuffs could not be removed because they were all dangerous criminals and could escape. The State party has not presented any observations to refute this part of the authors’ claim. In the circumstances, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations. The Committee considers that the facts as presented reveal a violation of the alleged victims’ rights under article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. 7.2 The authors claimed that the alleged victims were beaten and tortured by the investigators, so as to make them confess guilt. These allegations were presented both in court and in the context of the present communication. The State party has replied, in relation to the case of Mr. Karimov, that these allegations were not corroborated by the materials in the case file, and that the alleged victim was examined on two occasions by medical doctors who did not find marks of torture on his body. The State party makes no comment in relation to the torture allegations made on behalf of Mr. Askarov and the Davlatov brothers. In the absence of any other pertinent information from the State party, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations. The Committee recalls that once a complaint about illtreatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially.7 In the present case, the authors have presented a sufficiently detailed description of the torture suffered by Messrs Karimov, Askarov, and the Davlatov brothers, and have identified some of the investigators responsible. The Committee considers that in the circumstances of the case, the State party has failed to demonstrate that its authorities adequately addressed the torture allegations put forward by the authors. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the facts as presented disclose a violation of article 7, read together with article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant. 7.5 Both authors invoke violations of article 14, paragraph 3 (b) and (d). The first author has claimed violations of Karimov’s right to defence as although he was assigned a lawyer at the beginning of the preliminary investigation, this lawyer only occasionally attended the investigation hearings, to the point that a lawyer was hired privately to represent his son. Mr. Nursatov claims that his brother Askarov was not given a lawyer at the beginning of the investigation, although he risked the death sentence; when he was assigned an ex-officio lawyer, this lawyer was ineffective; and that the lawyer hired privately by his family was later forced to withdraw from the case. The State party has not refuted these allegations; in the circumstances the Committee concludes that they, since adequately substantiated, must be given due weight. The Committee recalls8 its jurisprudence that particularly in cases involving capital punishment, it is axiomatic that the accused is effectively assisted by a lawyer at all stages of the proceedings. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that Mr. Karimov’s and Askarov’s rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (b) and (d), were violated. 7.3 Both authors claim that the conditions of detention at the premises of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were inadequate having regard to the lengthy period of detention. They point out that the alleged victims were unlawfully detained during periods largely exceeding the statutorily authorized time limits for detention in premises of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and in the Temporary Detention Centre. During this period, no parcels sent to the victims by their families were transmitted to them, and the food distributed in the detention facilities was insufficient. In addition, Mr. Askarov and the Davlatov brothers were denied food for the first three days of arrest. The State party has not commented on these allegations. In these circumstances, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations. The Committee considers therefore that the facts as submitted reveal a violation by the State party of Mr. Karimov’s, 7.6 The Committee recalls that the imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial that did not meet the requirements for a fair trial constitutes a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. In the present case, death sentences were imposed on all victims in violation of article 7 read together with article 14, paragraph 3 (g), as well as in violation of article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. In addition, in relation to both Messrs. Karimov and Askarov, the death sentence was imposed in violation of the fair trial guarantees set out in article 14, paragraph 3 (b) and (d), of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the alleged victims’ rights under article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, have also been violated. 8 See for example Aliev v. Ukraine, communication No. 781/1997, Views adopted on 7 August 2003, para. 7.2. 7 General comment on article 7, No. 20 [44], adopted on 3 April 1992, para. 14. 97