CCPR/C/125/D/2322/2013 is punished as a criminal offence under their law (para. 7). The Committee notes that, while the State party reports that it conducted several inquiries into the author’s claims, it has not been shown that those investigations were launched promptly or that they were conducted effectively. The Committee emphasizes that the first allegations of ill-treatment were made by the author’s lawyer on 21 June 2007, a week after the arrest, while the first investigation into the allegations did not start until 31 August 2007. Furthermore, no forensic medical examination of the author was conducted before 19 February 2009 and key witnesses and medical personnel were not promptly questioned by the authorities, as evidenced by the court decisions of 19 September 2008 and 1 June 2010, when the injuries had already healed and witnesses could not recollect details of the events in question due to the time elapsed. 12.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which 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. 6 The Committee reiterates that the Covenant does not provide a right for individuals to require that the State party criminally prosecute another person. 7 It considers, nonetheless, that the State party is under a duty to investigate promptly, impartially and thoroughly alleged violations of human rights, to prosecute the suspects and punish those held responsible for such violations 8 and to provide other forms of reparation, including compensation. 9 The Committee notes that nothing in the material on file allows it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of the author’s cruel and inhuman treatment was carried out promptly or effectively by the authorities. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. 12.4 Having concluded that, in the present case, there has been a violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s remaining claim under article 7 of the Covenant. 13. 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 in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. 14. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated with an effective remedy in the form of full reparation. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to, inter alia, provide Vladimir Chernev 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. 15. 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. 6 7 8 9 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14; and its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 15. See also Askarov v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012), para. 8.3; and Batanov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015), para. 11.2. See, for example, X. v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/120/D/2256/2013), para. 7.4. Ibid. Ibid.