CCPR/C/126/D/2697/2015 not been met for the purposes of admissibility and considers the claim inadmissible for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies. 7.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated the remaining claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the case in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee first takes into consideration the author’s allegations that he was tortured and otherwise mistreated by police officers on several occasions, in particular that, prior to the inspection of the cells, he had been given a razor blade and told he could cut himself and subsequently hit in the chest and choked while being pinned against a wall, and during the inspection he was hit and his head banged against a wall. In this regard, the Committee notes the author’s explanation that, during his beating, police officers repositioned the surveillance cameras to make it impossible for any evidence to be recorded. The Committee also notes the State party’s conclusion that the author’s allegations have not been confirmed. The Committee takes note that the findings of the forensic medical examination indicate “minor injuries” and suggest self-inflicted harm (the cuts). The Committee observes, however, that, while still in custody, the author was hospitalized for 10 days and diagnosed with a closed brain injury, a diagnosis that is consistent with the author’s description of the type of violence that he was subjected to while in the detention centre, namely, that an officer punched the author оn the head and hit his head against a wall. In the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s failure to explain how the author came to sustain the above-mentioned injury while in detention, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. Therefore, the Committee finds that he was the victim of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 8.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s claims of torture, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which a thorough criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights, such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant. 4 The Committee notes that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that the preliminary examination into the allegations of torture was carried out thoroughly and effectively. In the present case, the inquiry conducted lacked impartiality, since the investigator interviewed law enforcement officers from the temporary detention centre, but failed to interview the author. In addition, the Committee notes the author’s statement that the materials collected through the preliminary investigation did not include any recordings of the detention centre premises or a protocol establishing the viewing of such video surveillance materials, which was neither explained nor contested by the State party. The Committee also observes that the State party limited itself to a preliminary examination, instead of launching a formal criminal investigation procedure. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the facts before it also disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a). 10. 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, inter alia, to take appropriate steps to: (a) conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if confirmed, prosecute and punish 4 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14; and general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18. 7