Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2850/2016 the Issyk-Atynsk district prosecutor’s office to question a limited number of witnesses from the detention facility. The Committee further notes, that having arrived to the conclusion that the police officers used force under the Instruction No. 263 in order to prevent an attempted escape and to re-establish the order, the prosecutors have never tried to establish why so many detained persons who did not participate in the assault of the duty officer, the author among them, had been beaten. There seems to have been no attempt to substantiate the claim that an escape had been attempted or whether the use of force was proportionate to the aim of reestablishing the order in the detention facility or preventing the attempted escape. In addition, the prosecutors did not question all relevant witnesses, in particular the members of the monitoring group who visited the detention facility and interviewed the detainees just two days after the incident. The State party did not provide any information about actions of the author which justified the use of force under articles 12 and 13 of the Law on interior affairs agencies. The Committee further notes that when the author appealed the Issyk-Atynsk district prosecutor’s office decision dated 27 May 2013, the courts rejected his appeal only because the other detainees, who initially complained about beating to the prosecutor’s office, withdrew their complaints. The courts disregarded the fact that the author maintained his complaint. In view of these facts, the Committee comes to the conclusion that there has been no effective investigation carried out into the author’s allegations of ill-treatment, in violation of article 7 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 8.8 In view of this conclusion, the Committee decides not to examine the author’s claims under article 10 (1) 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 by the State party of article 7 read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) 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: (a) conduct a prompt and effective investigation into the beatings of the author, and if confirmed, prosecute, try and punish those responsible; ; (b) provide the author with adequate compensation for the violations of his rights. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from 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 and 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 present Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party. 7