CCPR/C/130/D/2429/2014 who had been accused by the author of torturing him. Nothing in the case file shows that the courts’ further review of the refusal by the assistant district prosecutor to open a criminal investigation for lack of a crime went beyond the first inquiry conducted by the district prosecutor’s office. In the absence of any other pertinent information, and in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) (a) and 14 (3) (g), of the Covenant. 7.6 In the light of the previous findings, the Committee will not examine the author’s claims under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 7.7 The author has further claimed a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant, as his pretrial detention had been approved by a prosecutor and not by a judge. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with the provisions of its general comment No. 35 (2014), a detainee must be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and that it is inherent in the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority that is independent, objective and impartial. In this connection, the Committee reiterates that a public prosecutor cannot be considered as an officer exercising judicial power under article 9 (3) of the Covenant.9 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 7.8 The Committee also notes the author’s undisputed allegation that, on 12 June 2007, the Aksiy district court released him from pretrial detention. However, shortly after, under pressure from victims of the alleged crimes, the judge orally revoked his own decision and ordered the author to be placed in pretrial detention again. The Committee recalls in that regard that article 9 (4) requires that the reviewing court must have the power to order release from unlawful detention and that, when a judicial order of release under article 9 (4) becomes operative, it must be complied with immediately; continued detention would be arbitrary in violation of article 9 (1).10 On the basis of the submitted documents, the Committee finds that the Aksiy district court’s decision to release the author from pretrial detention was never officially revoked; instead, he remained in custody until 14 June 2007 when he was transferred to a hospital. In the absence of an explanation by the State party in this regard, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. In the light of this conclusion, the Committee will not examine separately the author’s claim under article 9 (4) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) (a) and 14 (3) (g), and article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant. 9. 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 conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if confirmed, have those responsible prosecuted and to provide the author with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 9 10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32; and, for example, Khadzhiyev v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/122/D/2252/2013), para. 7.8. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 41. 7