CCPR/C/114/D/2234/2013 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that the State party has failed to investigate promptly and efficiently her torture allegations. The Committee recalls that it attaches importance to States parties’ establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations. 10 It recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which states that a State party’s failure to investigate alleged violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the absence of any thorough explanation from the State party as to the investigation into the author’s torture allegations, the Committee considers that the State party’s competent authorities did not give due and adequate consideration to the author’s complaints of torture. The Committee concludes that the information before it discloses a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant. 7.6 The Committee has noted the author’s claims that the gang rape committed against her, as well as the sterilization without her consent, constitute violations of article 26, as they amount to discrimination on the basis of her sex; and that by arbitrarily and unlawfully arresting and detaining, and later prosecuting and convicting, her on account of her human rights activities, the State party additionally violated her rights under article 26, which protects against discrimination on grounds of political or other opinion. The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted these allegations specifically but that it has only stated, in general terms, that no violations of the author’s right have taken place in this case. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee notes that the involuntary sterilization together with the rape committed against the author show the specific aggression against her as a woman. Accordingly, the Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the facts as presented by the author amount to a violation of the author’s rights under article 26 of the Covenant. 7.7 The Committee has noted the author’s claims that: the State party failed to promptly inform her of the reasons for her arrest and detention, contrary to article 9 (2) of the Covenant, and to bring her before a judge or enable her to challenge the legality of detention, contrary to, respectively, article 9 (3) and article 9 (4) of the Covenant; the State party failed to ensure her right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court, contrary to article 14 (1), to provide her with adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence and to communicate with her lawyers, contrary to article 14 (3) (b), and to allow for the procedural guarantees enshrined in article 14 (3) (e); when she was attacked, while holding pickets in May and August 2003, the authorities failed to adequately investigate the women attacking her and, on both occasions, the author was charged for holding an unlawful demonstration and therefore the State party violated her rights under article 19 of the Covenant; the law enforcement authorities brought criminal charges against her for organizing an unlawful demonstration with regard to the pickets held by the author in May and August 2003, which restricted her freedom of assembly under article 21 and the restrictions were not justified as they were neither in the interest of national security or public safety, nor necessary for the protection of public health, morals or rights and freedoms of others; that the author was detained, charged, indicted and later convicted and imprisoned for the establishment of an unregistered public organization, severely restricting her freedom of association in violation of article 22 (2) of the Covenant. 7.8 The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted these allegations specifically but that it has only stated, in general terms, that no violations of the author’s 10 14 See communication 2046/2011, Hmeed and others v. Libya, Views adopted on 17 October 2014, para. 6.8.