CCPR/C/120/D/2209/2012 6.5 In line with its jurisprudence, the Committee reaffirms its position that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially considering that the State party alone has access to some of the relevant information. 22 In the absence of any rebuttal statements or any comments from the State party on these facts, the Committee gives due weight to the author’s contentions, which raises a strong presumption of direct participation of the State party in the violation of his brother’s right to life, in violation of article 6 of the Covenant. 6.6 Concerning the author’s allegations that the grave injuries found on his brother’s body were consistent with the evidence of the eyewitness who reported that the victim had been beaten all over his body by the police officers and that his head had been struck heavily against the police van, and in the absence of a response from the State party in that regard, the Committee gives due weight to the author’s claims, and finds a violation of his brother’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 6.7 The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that the State party could not demonstrate that the arrest of the victim had been “reasonable” or “necessary” in the circumstances. It also notes that the toxicology report showed that there had been no alcohol in the blood system of the victim and that no evidence was provided to support the police officer’s allegation that the victim had been drunk and obstructing traffic at the time of arrest. In the absence of a clarification on the part of the State party as to the grounds of the author’s brother’s detention, the Committee finds a violation by the State party of article 9 of the Covenant. 6.8 The author also invokes article 2 (3) of the Covenant, whereby all States parties have the obligation to ensure that any person whose rights under the Covenant are violated has an effective remedy. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms to consider complaints of rights violations. It recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which stipulates that 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. 6.9 The Committee notes that nearly seven years after the death of the victim, the author still does not know the circumstances surrounding his brother’s death and the State party’s authorities have yet to carry out a full and independent investigation.23 6.10 In that connection, the Committee notes the author’s submission that the Attorney General, through its decision not to press charges against the accused police officers in spite of the evidence supporting the continuation of the investigation and prosecution, interfered with the inquiry led by the magistrate. The Committee also notes the author’s submission that, on 3 June 2011, the Court of Appeal ordered an interim stay of the proceedings before the magistrate until its final determination and the unconditional release of the two police officers, and that neither the author nor the magistrate were present at the hearing. The Committee further notes that the case was still pending before the Court of Appeal as at 21 April 2017.24 The Committee therefore considers that the State party failed to investigate properly the detention, torture and death of the author’s brother, to prosecute the perpetrators and ensure redress, thereby violating the author’s and his brother’s rights under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant. 7. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 6, 7 and 9, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 8. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This provision requires that 22 23 24 8 See, for example, Belamrania v. Algeria (see note 20 above), para. 6.5; and communication No. 1832/2008, Al Khazmi v. Libya, Views adopted on 18 July 2013, para. 8.2. See, for example, communication No. 1619/2007, Felipe and Evelyn Pestaño v. The Philippines, Views adopted on 23 March 2010, para. 7.5. See paragraph 2.21 above.