CCPR/C/119/D/2359/2014 articles 2 (3), 10 (2) (a) and 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. It therefore declares those claims admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the claims, made under article 7 of the Covenant, that the authors were subjected to physical and psychological pressure to coerce them into confessing to a crime. The Committee observes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. The Committee recalls its consistent jurisprudence that once a complaint of ill-treatment, constituting a violation of article 7, has been filed, the State party must investigate the complaint promptly and impartially. 9 The Committee notes that, according to the authors’ submissions, the relatives of the authors have filed complaints with the national authorities, claiming torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In addition, Mr. Erbabaev complained during a court hearing about torture that he had suffered at the hands of National Security Service officers; this statement is clearly recorded in the minutes of the court hearing. Despite these complaints, neither the courts nor the relevant local authorities, including the prosecutor’s office, launched a prompt and impartial investigation. Additionally, the State party, in its observations also failed to address the claims and allegations submitted by the authors in their communication. Under these circumstances, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the authors’ rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. Having concluded that, in the present case, there has been a violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, the Committee decides not to examine separately Mr. Saidarov’s claims under article 10 (2). 7.3 The Committee further notes the authors’ claims, under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, that they were arbitrarily detained by National Security Service officers without their detention being initially registered, and that they were first questioned as witnesses. The authors also claim that their initial detention was arbitrary, and that they should have been released pending trial. The State party, in its observations on the merits of the present communication, did not address the issue of arbitrary detention. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, in which it states that arrest within the meaning of article 9 need not involve a formal arrest as defined under domestic law. In the absence of any pertinent explanation from the State party regarding the authors’ allegations of arbitrary detention, the Committee considers that the authors’ rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant were violated. Having come to a conclusion regarding violations of article 9 (1) that applies to all the authors, the Committee decides not to examine Mr. Saidarov and Mr. Erbabaev’s separate claims under article 9 (2). 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of the authors’ rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), and article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors 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 to, inter alia, take appropriate steps to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the authors’ allegations of torture; and to provide the authors 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. 10. 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 and subject to its jurisdiction the 9 6 See general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14.