CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012 his counsel was absent, and could not question any witnesses at the Supreme Court hearings. In this connection, the Committee recalls, in accordance with its long-standing jurisprudence, that article 14 of the Covenant guarantees the right of accused persons to call and question witnesses. This guarantee is important for ensuring an effective defence by the accused and their counsel and thus guarantees the accused the same legal powers of compelling the attendance of witnesses and of examining or cross-examining any witnesses as are available to the prosecution.20 The Committee takes note of the State party’s contention that the witnesses had no connection to the events in question or that that records of the court hearings contained no mention of counsel’s request to call any additional witnesses. The Committee notes, however, that it remains undisputed that the author’s counsel was not able to question witnesses on the first day of trial, 2 September 2010, and that the author was not able to call or cross-examine witnesses at the Supreme Court hearing. In these circumstances, and on the basis of the material before it, the Committee concludes that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant. 8.7 The Committee, lastly, examines the author’s claims that his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence were violated. The Committee notes the author’s claims that the police and the prosecutor refused to allow him to meet with his lawyer in private and withheld information necessary to prepare for his defence. Furthermore, the author claims that on several occasions, relatives of the deceased police officer physically attacked his lawyer on the premises of the police station and at the prosecutor’s office and that the police and local prosecutors failed to intervene, creating a general sense of fear that is incompatible with the proper execution of a defence lawyer’s functions. There is also unrefuted evidence that on the first day of trial, 2 September 2010, the author’s lawyer was not present at the hearings because he had not been notified in time, while the court heard 16 prosecution witnesses. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and articles 9 (1), 10 (1) and 14 (3) (b) and (e) of the Covenant. 10. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author 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, inter alia, to take appropriate steps to immediately release the author; quash the author’s conviction and, if necessary, conduct a new trial, in accordance with the principles of fair hearings, presumption of innocence and other procedural safeguards; and provide the author with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future. 11. 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 remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State 20 16 See general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 39.