CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015 admissible the claims under article 7 in conjunction with article 2 (3) and article 14 (1) of the Covenant, and therefore proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee notes the author’s detailed allegations of torture by police officers and investigators upon apprehension and during the pretrial detention, aimed at extracting a confession. The Committee also notes that, on 4 June 2009, the author was examined by medical experts who found and documented injuries on his body. The Committee notes that the author submitted to this effect the medical certificate dated 5 June 2009, which details his injuries, notably on his shoulders and on his left knee. The Committee takes note of the medical expertise conclusion that some injuries had been inflicted with a hard blunt object and could not have been sustained through a single fall (the author stated he had fallen on the street a week earlier and had damaged his right shoulder and knees). On the other hand, the Committee also notes that the State party rejects the author’s allegations and claims the injuries had been sustained earlier and that the author’s poor health was taken into consideration by the trial court as a mitigating factor. The Committee also takes note of the two medical certificates of November 2010 that indicate that the author suffered from health problems and several chronical diseases, including hypertension. Regarding the State party’s obligation to investigate properly the author’s torture claim, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 22 The Committee notes that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of torture was carried out promptly and effectively. In the light of the above, the Committee finds that there has been a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant owing to the lack of effective investigation of his torture allegations. 11.3 The Committee further notes the author’s claims that the Court used the testimony of the main accused and witness, “At.”, against the author, which allegedly had been extracted under torture and was subsequently retracted by the witness during the court hearing. It further notes that the State party did not contest the argument that decisive weight had been attributed to the testimony of that witness in the author’s trial, despite the allegation that it had been extracted under torture. From the information before it, the Committee observes that the trial court did not take into consideration the retraction by that witness of his inculpatory statement against the author or the detailed description of the torture he had been subjected to during pretrial interrogation, instead relying solely on the testimony that the witness had given at the pretrial phase. According to the court transcript, the court also dismissed without addressing its substance the author’s allegations of “substantial violations in the pretrial investigation” and his request to issue a special ruling against the investigator, “Sh.”. In the light of the above, the Committee finds that there has been a violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 12. The Human Rights 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 7 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) and article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 13. 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 22 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, para. 14; and its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 15. See also communication No. 2231/2012, Askarov v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 11 May 2016, para. 8.3.