CCPR/C/113/D/2087/2011 steps taken by the State party were carried out by officers of Moragahahena Police Station, that is, the same police forces that arrested and detained Sunil Hemachandra (para. 3.9); that the investigation ordered on 8 August 2003 by the Magistrate of Horana was closed, further to the Attorney General’s decision of 29 April 2004 not to pursue charges for assault; that it took the Supreme Court seven years to rule on the fundamental rights petition filed by the authors; and that in its decision of 6 August 2010, the Supreme Court discarded the possibility of the victim’s custodial death being a result of torture, without ordering any independent investigation to ascertain the facts and identify possible perpetrators: no police officer was identified as a suspect or interrogated, let alone being suspended or brought to justice. In the absence of any explanation by the State party, the Committee concludes that the State party’s investigations into the suspicious circumstances of the death of Sunil Hemachandra were inadequate. The Committee concludes that the State party’s authorities, either by act or omission, are responsible for not taking adequate measures to protect Sunil Hemachandra’s life, and to properly investigate his death and take appropriate action against those found responsible, in breach of article 6 (para. 1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3), of the Covenant. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the authors’ allegations under article 7 of the Covenant with respect to Sunil Hemachandra, namely that he was subjected to severe beatings on the head and abdomen during the course of his arrest and his transfer to the Moragahahena Police Station detention facility on 22 July 2003. Furthermore, the Committee observes that despite his critical medical condition on the following day, characterized by uninterrupted bleeding, to which the detention authorities were alerted, the latter failed to seek medical assistance for several hours (paras. 2.6. and 2.7). In the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee finds a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with respect to Sunil Hemachandra. 6.5 Having found a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the Committee will not examine separately the authors’ allegations under article 10 of the Covenant. 6.6 The Committee takes note of the authors’ allegation that, by failing to launch appropriate investigations into their son and nephew’s death, the State party has left them in continuous mental suffering. The Committee observes that although close to 12 years have elapsed since the death of Sunil Hemachandra, the authors still do not know the exact circumstances surrounding it, and the State party’s authorities have not indicted, prosecuted or brought to justice anyone in connection with this custodial death in the suspicious circumstances already described. The Committee acknowledges the continued anguish and mental stress caused to the authors, as close relatives of a deceased detainee, and considers that it amounts to a breach of article 2 (para. 3), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant, in regard to them.9 6.7 Regarding article 9, the Committee takes note of the authors’ allegations that in the late evening of 22 July 2003, five officers from the Moragahahena police broke into the second author’s house; that they started beating Sunil Hemachandra, whom they had found sleeping in his room; that they subsequently proceeded to arrest Sunil Hemachandra, without informing him of the reasons for his arrest; that the latter was arbitrarily detained, without any possibility of challenging the legality of his detention; that he could not contact his relatives; and that he was not legally represented. In the absence of any rebutting 9 10 adopted on 23 March 2010, para. 7.2; No. 1447/2006, Amirov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 2 April 2009, para. 11.2; and No. 1436/2005, Sathasivam v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 8 July 2008, para. 6.4. See Eshonov v. Uzbekistan (note 7 above), para. 9.10; and Amirov v. Russian Federation (note 8 above), para. 11.7.