CCPR/C/114/D/2234/2013 Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has also noted the author’s claims that: on 1 July 2002, she was verbally abused, degraded and humiliated by the Head and the Deputy Head of the Police Department, who inflicted severe physical and mental pain and suffering by kicking and beating her with a truncheon, hitting her head on the door of her cell and tearing open the author’s clothes and threatening to rape her; on 15 April 2005, she was gang-raped causing such pain and suffering that she fell unconscious; the detention authorities of Ferghana Remand Centre No. 10 deliberately subjected the author to a detention regime aimed at obtaining a confession from her that she was running an illegal organization; while serving her sentence, over a period of one year and eight months, the author was subjected to a wide range of severe abuses by the prison wardens and the prison administration of the women’s colony aimed at breaking her moral and physical resistance so as to force her to confessing to the running of an illegal organization; a forced surgery that included her forced sterilization was performed on her; and all of the above constitute violations of article 7 of the Covenant. 7.3 In that connection, the Committee notes that the author provides detailed account of the different types of persecution to which she was subjected, and her description is supported by detailed and well-documented evidence.5 The Committee further notes that the author formally complained to various authorities regarding those violations. The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted these allegations, but has merely stated that the verifications conducted could not confirm the author’s allegations; and, instead of providing detailed information and explanations to the Committee in refutation, the State party accused the author of having presented “invented and biased” allegations. The Committee notes in particular the State party’s submission that the sterilization of the author “could not have been performed without her consent”, but considers that this cannot be taken as a credible denial of the author’s allegation regarding the forced nature of the medical procedure to which she was subjected. 7.4 In that regard, the Committee recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially.6 The Committee further recalls that the State party is responsible for the security of all persons held in detention and that, when there are allegations of torture and mistreatment, it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence refuting the author’s allegations.7 In the absence of any thorough explanation from the State party, the Committee has to give due weight to the author’s allegations, particularly to allegations of sexual abuse, a form of extreme gender-based violence.8 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose multiple grave violations of the prohibition of torture and of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant.9 5 6 7 8 9 See paragraph 5.3 above. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14. See communication No. 2079/2011, Khadzhiev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 8.4. See communication No. 1900/2009, Mehalli v. Algeria, Views adopted on 21 March 2014, para. 7.10. See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (art. 14), para. 60, and communication No. 1401/2005, Kirpo v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 27 October 2009, para. 6.3. 13