the circumstances, due weight must be given to the author's allegations, to the extent that they have been substantiated. 2.6 As to the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is submitted that criminal proceedings against Mr. Bozize were to have been opened on 28 February 1991, allegedly in order to profit from the momentary absence, owing to a trip abroad, of his lawyer. However, the trial was postponed for "technical reasons". Since then, the trial has apparently been postponed on other occasions. Mrs Bozize complains that in the months following his arrest, her husband was denied access to counsel; later, the family retained the services of a lawyer to defend him. The lawyer, however, was denied authorization to visit his client; the lawyer allegedly also suffered restrictions of his freedom of movement on account of his client. 5.2 The Committee decides to base its Views on the following facts, which have not been contested by the State party. Mr. François Bozize was arrested on 24 July 1989 and was taken to the military camp at Roux, Bangui, on 31 August 1989. There, he was subjected to maltreatment and was held incommunicado until 26 October 1990, when his lawyer was able to visit him. During the night of 10 to 11 July 1990, he was beaten and sustained serious injuries, which was confirmed by his lawyer. Moreover, while detained in the Camp at Roux, he was held under conditions which did not respect the inherent dignity of the human person. After his arrest, Mr. Bozize was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, was denied access to counsel and was not, in due time, afforded the opportunity to obtain a decision by a court on the lawfulness of his arrest and detention. The Committee finds that the above amount to violations by the State party of articles 7, 9, and 10 in the case. The complaint 3. It is submitted that the events described above constitute violations of Mr. Bozize's rights under the Covenant. Although the author does not specifically invoke any provisions of the Covenant, it transpires from the context of her submissions that her claims relate primarily to articles 7, 9, 10, 14 and 19 of the Covenant. 5.3 The Committee notes that although Mr. Bozize has not yet been tried, his right to a fair trial has been violated; in particular, his right to be tried within a "reasonable time" under article 14, paragraph 3 (c), has not been respected, as he does not appear to have been tried at first instance after over four years of detention. The Committee's decision on admissibility 4.1 During its forty-fifth session, in July 1992, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It noted with concern that in spite of two reminders addressed to the State party, in July and September 1991, no information or observations on the admissibility of the communication had been received from the State party. In the circumstances, the Committee found that it was not precluded from considering the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 In respect of a possible violation of article 19 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that this claim has remained unsubstantiated. The Committee therefore makes no finding of a violation in this respect. 4.2 On 8 July 1992, the Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under articles 7; 9; 10; 14, paragraphs 1 and 3; and 19 of the Covenant. 6. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose violations of articles 7, 9, 10 and 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant. Examination of the merits 5.1 The State party did not provide any information in respect of the substance of the author's allegations, in spite of two reminders addressed to it in June 1993 and February 1994. The Committee notes with regret and great concern the absence of cooperation on the part of the State party in respect of both the admissibility and the substance of the author's allegations. It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol and in rule 91 of the Committee's rules of procedure that a State party to the Covenant must investigate in good faith all the allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its authorities and furnish the Committee with the information available to it. In 7. The Committee is of the view that Mr. François Bozize is entitled, under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, to an effective remedy, including his release and appropriate compensation for the treatment suffered. The State party should investigate the events complained of and bring to justice those held responsible for the author's treatment; it further is under an obligation to take effective measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. 8. The Committee would wish to receive prompt information on any relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee's Views. 66