CCPR/C/128/D/2367/2014 some stage of the proceedings.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which there can be certain restrictions on the author’s right to call witnesses that are justified by the need for protection of the victim’s rights,6 which in the present case is particularly pertinent considering the fact that the victim was a minor. The Committee notes in this regard the approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights, which in assessing whether an accused person has received a fair trial takes into account the rights of the perceived victim7 and the need to prevent revictimization. 9.3 In the present case, however, the Committee notes that the victim, 8 her teacher L.M.A. and expert witnesses9 all provided evidence against the author during the pretrial investigation, which were read into record, but that the witnesses were not made available to the defence for questioning or cross-examination. The Committee notes that the State party does not provide pertinent explanations on the unavailability during the court hearings of the witnesses, including the expert witnesses, who provided important forensic information. The Committee therefore considers that, in the circumstances of the present case and in the absence of pertinent explanations from the State party, such as, for example alternatives to direct questioning of the victim in an open court, the State party violated the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (e).10 10. 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 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant. 11. 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 provide adequate compensation and other measures of satisfaction for the violations occurred. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 12. 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 or not 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 party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and disseminate them widely in the official language of the State party. 5 6 7 8 9 10 See Allaberdiev v. Uzbekistan, (CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015), para. 8.8. See Stasaitis v. Lithuania, (CCPR/C/127/D/2719/2016 and Corr.1), para. 8.6. See, inter alia, S.N. v. Sweden, judgment of 2 July 2002 (application No. 34209/96), para. 47; Oyston v. United Kingdom, judgment of 22 January 2002 (application No. 42011/98); and Y. v. Slovenia, judgment of 28 May 2015 (application No. 41107/10), paras. 69–72 and 106. Copy of the verdict and sentence, p. 3. Ibid., p. 4. See Dugin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/81/D/815/1998), para. 9.3; and Rouse v. Philippines (CCPR/C/84/D/1089/2002), para. 7.5. 9