CCPR/C/128/D/2339/2014 above), as it was assigned to H.A.S., the same investigator who was allegedly implicated in the authors’ torture claims. The Committee also notes the authors’ claims that their guilt was established in court proceedings in part on the basis of confessions they had made when they were tortured, which were retained as evidence by the courts. Accordingly, in the circumstances as described by the parties, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the authors’ rights under article 7, read separately and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 14 (3) (g), of the Covenant. 9.5 The Committee next considers the authors’ claims that during various times in 2004 and 2005, they were held unlawfully, and that their official arrest and detention was formalized only later. The Committee notes the authors’ assertions that Mr. Yashuev was held unlawfully from 7 November to 1 December 2004; Mr. Barakhaev, from 2 to 25 October 2004; Mr. Taysumov, from 29 September to 20 October 2004; Mr. Temirbulatov, from 29 September to 10 October 2004; Mr. Yusupov, from 28 October to 1 November 2004; and Mr. Alarkhanov, from 19 to 21 February 2005. The Committee also notes the claims by the authors that upon their unlawful apprehensions, they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and were not brought promptly before a judge. The State party does not provide any refutation or explanations regarding these specific dates, claiming only that the authors were arrested and treated in accordance with provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. 9.6 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, in which it refers to the prohibition on arbitrary and unlawful deprivations of liberty, i.e., deprivation of liberty that is not imposed on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law. The two prohibitions overlap, in that arrests or detentions may be in violation of the applicable law but not arbitrary, or legally permitted but arbitrary, or both arbitrary and unlawful. Arrest or detention that lacks any legal basis is also arbitrary.12 Article 9 also requires compliance with domestic rules that define when authorization to continue detention must be obtained from a judge or other officer, 13 where individuals may be detained,14 when the detained person must be brought to court 15 and the legal limits on the duration of detention.16 Persons deprived of their liberty must be assisted in obtaining access to effective remedies to enforce their rights, including an initial and periodic judicial reviews of the lawfulness of the detention, and to prevent conditions of detention that are incompatible with the Covenant.17 9.7 In the present case, the Committee notes, on the basis of the submissions on file, that the authors were not informed at the time of apprehension of the reasons for their arrest or of the charges against them, and they were not brought promptly before a judge to verify the legality of their detention. In the circumstances as described, and in the absence of further relevant information or explanations by the State party, the Committee concludes that the State party violated the rights of the authors under articles 9 (2) and (3). 9.8 In the light of this conclusion, the Committee decides that it will not examine separately the authors’ remaining claims under article 9 of the Covenant. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 9 (2) and (3), and 14 (3) (g), of the Covenant. 11. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors 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: conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation into the authors’ allegations of torture and, if confirmed, prosecute those responsible; and provide full redress to the authors, including just compensation and other 12 13 14 15 16 17 General comment No. 35, para. 11. Gridin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997), para. 8.1; see also the Committee’s general comment No. 35, para. 23. Umarov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/100/D/1449/2006), para. 8.4. Gómez Casafranca v. Peru (CCPR/C/78/D/981/2001), para. 7.2. Israil v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/103/D/2024/2011), para. 9.2. Fijalkowska v. Poland (CCPR/C/84/D/1061/2002), paras. 8.3–8.4; A v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/66/D/754/1997), para. 7.3; and the Committee’s general comment No. 31, para. 15. 11