CCPR/C/123/D/2247/2013 person, and were therefore contrary to article 10 (1), a provision of the Covenant dealing specifically with the situation of persons deprived of their liberty. For these reasons, the Committee finds that the circumstances of the author’s detention, as described by the author, constitute a violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that when he initiated civil proceedings before the Moskovsky District Court of Minsk against the illegal inaction of the administration of the detention facility, claiming that the conditions of his detention violated his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, the court refused to initiate proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, indicating that national legislation provides for an out-of-court (administrative) procedure for the consideration of complaints regarding conditions of detention, namely through a complaint to the head of the detention facility, where the author had served his administrative sentence. 6.5 The Committee reiterates the importance it attaches to States parties establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing alleged violations of rights under domestic law. It refers to paragraph 15 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it states that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, the Committee notes that the author filed several complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office, which failed to take any action, and that the national courts refused to initiate proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the information before it indicates that the out-of-court (administrative) procedure was not an effective remedy. In the absence of any information from the State party, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under articles 7 and 10 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant have been violated. 6.6 In the light of that conclusion, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s remaining claims under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 7. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4), of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7 and 10 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. 8. In accordance with 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. In the present case, the State party is under an obligation, inter alia, to provide adequate compensation to the author, including reimbursement of any legal costs incurred, as well as appropriate measures of satisfaction. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future, including by amending the current system of submitting complaints regarding conditions of detention to ensure that complainants have access to an effective remedy. 9. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party. 5