CCPR/C/119/D/2125/2011 Department of Internal Affairs again refused to open a criminal investigation. The Committee notes, however, that the decision of the Department of Internal Affairs of 16 March 2009 was identical to its decision of 29 December 2008 and that it did not contain information on any additional investigative measures undertaken. The Committee notes the arguments of the domestic authorities that the author’s allegations of torture and the results of the investigation were considered by the trial court. The State party, however, has not presented any documents in support of its arguments. From the information before it, the Committee observes that not only did the trial court not consider the author’s allegations of torture, but that it also prevented the author from speaking about them in front of the jury. In the light of the above, the Committee finds that there has been a violation of the author´s rights under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant due to the lack of effective investigation of his torture allegations. 9.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim about being denied the right to participate in the appeal court hearing on 10 November 2009. In this regard, the Committee notes that the author had requested to be present in the court in person and that the court followed domestic law in rejecting his written request. 9 The Committee also notes that the author was represented by four lawyers at the appeal hearing and that at least two of these lawyers had represented him throughout the criminal proceedings against him. The Committee finds, however, that article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant applies to the present case, since under the appeal proceedings the court examines the case as to the facts and the law and makes a new assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence. The Committee recalls that article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant requires that accused persons are entitled to be present during their trial and that proceedings in the absence of the accused are only permissible if this is in the interest of the proper administration of justice or when accused persons, although informed of the proceedings sufficiently in advance, decline to exercise their right to be present. 10 Accordingly, in the absence of adequate explanation by the State party, the Committee finds that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. In view of this conclusion, the Committee decides not to examine the author’s claims under article 14 (5) of the Covenant. 9.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that the trial court has accepted his forced confessions as evidence. It also notes the statement of the State party that the evidence considered by the court was obtained in a lawful way and accepted by the court as admissible. In this regard, the Committee notes that information on file indicates that the trial court has not considered the way the four confessions were obtained by the police officers. There is nothing on file to suggest that the court has considered that, when the author wrote the confessions, he was under police control in a detention facility and that he retracted the confessions once he talked to his lawyers. In this light, the Committee concludes, that the author’s rights under article 14 (1) and (3) (g) of the Covenant have been violated. 10. 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 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant and of article 14 (1) and (3) (d) and (g) of the Covenant. 11. 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 requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to: (a) conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and, if confirmed, prosecute, try and punish those responsible for the torture of the author; (b) review the court’s verdict in the author’s case with the exclusion of the confessions the nature of which was not duly verified by the court; and (c) provide compensation to the author for the violations suffered. The State party is also under 9 10 According to article 408 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the presence of the sentenced person in the second-instance court hearing is possible only if the Prosecutor requests a heavier penalty for this person. See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 36. 9