– ICCPR 1 UN TREATY BODIES Article 2(1) ICCPR requires that the State ensure Covenant rights to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, and Article 2(3) provides that persons whose rights are violated shall have an effective remedy, with their right thereto to be determined by the competent authorities. Taken together with Article 7, these provisions mean that “Complaints [about ill-treatment] must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities.”62 Furthermore, the right to lodge complaints against ill-treatment must be recognized in the State’s domestic law.63 The HRC has held that investigation should not depend on the receipt of a complaint, but should be initiated as soon as there are grounds for believing that ill-treatment has occurred.64 Investigations conducted by the State must be effective. In Fuenzalida v Ecuador, an investigation into allegations of torture and ill-treatment by the applicant had been initiated and subsequently rejected by a criminal court. However, the HRC found this investigation insufficient in the specific circumstances of the case, as there was no evidence that an incident in which the author suffered a bullet wound had been investigated by the court.65 The State obligation to investigate extends even to acts of a prior regime. In its General Comment on Article 7, the HRC stated that “Amnesties are generally incompatible with the duty of States to investigate such acts; to guarantee freedom from such acts within their jurisdiction; and to ensure that they do not occur in the future. States may not deprive individuals of the right to an effective remedy, including compensation and such full rehabilitation as may be possible.”66 Thus, in Rodríguez v Uruguay, the State’s failure to investigate allegations that the applicant had been tortured by the secret police of the former military regime amounted to a violation of Article 7 in connection with Article 2(3) of the Covenant, irrespective of the existence of a law granting amnesty.67 Furthermore, notwithstanding the viability of other avenues of redress, the HRC found in Zelaya Blanco v Nicaragua that “responsibility for investigations falls under the HRC General Comment No. 20, §14. Ibid. 64 Alzery v Sweden, HRC Communication No. 1416/2005, 25 October 2006, §11.7. 65 Fuenzalida v Ecuador, HRC Communication No. 480/1991, 12 July 1996, §9.4. The applicant claimed that the shooting was a deliberate part of a larger set-up by the police, but the State Party claimed that it was necessary to prevent his escape. 66 HRC General Comment 20, §15. 67 Rodríguez v Uruguay, HRC Communication No. 322/1988, 19 July 1994. The Committee expressed concern that, “in adopting this law, the State party has contributed to an atmosphere of impunity which may undermine the democratic order and give rise to further grave human rights violations” (§12.4). 62 63 17