CCPR/C/125/D/2524/2015 Magomadov was indeed held in at least one pretrial detention facility in the city of Mozdok (para. 5.1 above). Those documents include letters from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the International Committee of the Red Cross that attest to Mr. Magomadov’s detention. The State party, however, denies ever holding him, claiming that its preliminary investigation indicates that Mr. Magomadov disappeared without the participation of the law enforcement authorities (paras. 4.7 and 5.2 above). 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, according to which the State party has an obligation to investigate all claims of potentially unlawful deprivation of life. Investigations and prosecutions of potentially unlawful deprivation of life should be undertaken in accordance with relevant international standards, including the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016),11 and must always be independent, impartial, prompt, thorough, effective, credible and transparent.12 7.4 The Committee further recalls that the cases of loss of life in custody create a presumption of arbitrary deprivation of life by the State authorities, 13 which can only be rebutted based on a proper investigation as set out above (para. 7.3). States parties also have a particular duty to investigate allegations of violations of article 6 whenever State authorities have used or appear to have used firearms or other potentially lethal force outside the immediate context of an armed conflict. 14 In the present case, instead of promptly launching an investigation, the State party refused to do so after only a “preliminary” assessment and never opened a formal criminal investigation, despite a number of requests from the author and her complaints to the authorities, including the courts. In the circumstances as described by the author, considering the evidence of the detention of Mr. Magomadov in the hands of the State party authorities, and in the absence of an explanation of the lack of a proper investigation by the authorities, the Committee concludes that the State party has violated its obligations under article 6 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee also considers the author’s allegations that Mr. Magomadov was arbitrarily detained by the State party authorities, in violation of his rights under article 9 (1). The Committee notes that the State party denies having arrested Mr. Magomadov, claiming only that he simply vanished in the streets of Grozny. The Committee further notes that this claim was rebutted by evidence submitted by the author that attests to his detention in Mozdok from 9 January to 3 February 1995 (para. 5.1 above). The State party has not informed the Committee of the reasons for Mr. Magomadov’s arrest, any charges against him, or whether on 3 February 1995 he was transferred to another facility. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, according to which arrest within the meaning of article 9 need not involve a formal arrest as defined under domestic law. Under the provisions of this article of the Covenant, no one shall be deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law. Based on the material on file, and in the absence of further explanations from the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the facts as presented reveal that Mr. Magomadov’s rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant were violated. 7.6 Having thus concluded for a violation of Mr. Magomadov’s rights under article 9 (1), the Committee decides not to examine the claims under article 9 (5) separately. 7.7 The Committee further observes that although more than 23 years have elapsed since the disappearance of Mr. Magomadov, the author still does not know the exact circumstances surrounding it or the current whereabouts of her brother and the State party’s authorities have been unable or unwilling to conduct an effective investigation. The Committee understands the continued anguish and mental stress caused to the author as the sister of a disappeared person, compounded by the refusal of the State party to acknowledge 11 12 13 14 6 See paragraph 11 of the Minnesota Protocol and the Committee’s general comment No. 36, para. 27. General comment No. 36, para. 28. Ibid., para. 30. Ibid.