CCPR/C/116/D/2099/2011 9.3 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. 4 Although the verdict of 29 January 2003 of the Lypetsk Regional Court mentions the author’s torture allegations, the court rejected them with a blanket statement that the evidence in the case confirmed the guilt of the accused. The Committee observes that, according to the State party’s submission, the Prosecutor’s Office on several occasions issued decisions refusing to open an investigation into the author’s torture allegations and that those decisions were ultimately confirmed by the courts. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission of 28 March 2013 that, on an unspecified date in 2013, the Office of the Gryazinsky Interregional Prosecutor revoked the ruling of 21 December 2012 and the ruling of 2 December 2002 and ordered a new verification of the author’s claims to be conducted. The Committee observes, however, that the investigation resulted, in April 2013, in another refusal to open a criminal case on the basis of the author’s torture allegations. At the same time, the Committee observes that neither the verdict and the decisions of the Prosecutor’s Office nor the State party’s submissions in the present proceedings provide any details as to the concrete steps taken by the authorities to investigate the author’s allegations. The Committee observes in particular that the State party did not provide any explanation regarding the author’s numerous documented injuries incurred at the time immediately following his arrest. 9.4 The Committee recalls that the State party is responsible for the security of any person in its custody, and when an individual is injured while in detention it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence refuting allegations that the State party’s agents are responsible5 and showing that they applied due diligence in protecting the detainee. The Committee considers that in the circumstances of the present case, the State party has failed to demonstrate that its authorities did address the torture allegations advanced by the author expeditiously and adequately, in the context of both domestic criminal proceedings and the present communication. Accordingly, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the rights of the author under article 7 read by itself and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.6 9.5 The Committee further notes the author’s claims that he was subjected to torture and forced to confess guilt to a number of crimes and that this confession was used by the courts as evidence to convict him, despite requests by the author that such evidence should be suppressed. The Committee recalls that the safeguard set out in article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant must be understood in terms of the absence of any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt.7 Information obtained as a result of torture must be excluded from the evidence.8 In the light of the inadequate and inconclusive investigation 4 5 6 7 8 See general comment No. 20 (1992) on article 7: prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14 and, for example, communication No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, para. 9.5. See communications No. 907/2000, Siragev v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 1 November 2005, para. 6.2; No. 889/1999, Zheikov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, para. 7.2; and Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan, para. 8.9. See, for example, Zheikov v. Russian Federation, para. 7.2 and Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, para. 9.5. See, for example, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 41; and communications No. 330/1988, Berry v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 7 April 1994, para. 11.7; No. 1033/2001, Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 21 July 2004, para. 7.4; and No. 1769/2008, Ismailov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 7.6. See general comment No. 32, para. 41. 7