CCPR/C/114/D/2017/2010 punishment, it is axiomatic that the accused must be effectively assisted by a lawyer at all stages of the proceedings”. In these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted by the author reveal a violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. In the light of this finding, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claims under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. 8.6 The author further claims a violation of his right to life under article 6 of the Covenant, since he was sentenced to death after an unfair trial. The Committee observes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. In that respect, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, in which it noted that the provision that a sentence of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, implies that “the procedural guarantees therein prescribed must be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence, and the right to review by a higher tribunal”. 16 In the same context, the Committee reiterates its jurisprudence that the imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected constitutes a violation of article 6 of the Covenant.17 In the light of the Committee’s findings of a violation of article 14 (d) and (g) of the Covenant, especially in the light of the author’s unrefuted allegations of torture and ill-treatment to force him confess guilt, what served as a basis for his conviction, it concludes that the final sentence of death and the subsequent execution of Mr. Burdyko did not meet the requirements of article 14 and that, as a result, his right to life under article 6 of the Covenant has also been violated. 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of Mr. Burdyko’s rights under articles 6; 7; 9 (3); and 14 (2) and (3) (d) of the Covenant. The State party has also breached its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide an effective remedy, including an impartial, effective and thorough investigation into the torture claims, prosecution of those responsible and effective reparation to the author’s family, to include an adequate monetary compensation for the loss of the author’s life and the reimbursement of the legal costs incurred. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future and, in the light of its obligations under the Optional Protocol, to cooperate in good faith with the Committee, particularly by complying with the requests of the Committee for interim measures. 11. By becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether or not there has been a violation of the Covenant. 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 and enforceable remedy in cases where a violation has been established. The Committee therefore requests the State party to provide, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Views of the Committee. 16 17 10 See also communication No. 253/1987, Kelly v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 8 April 1991, para. 5.14. See general comment No. 32, para. 59; and communications No. 719/1996, Levy v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 3 November 1998, para. 7.3; No. 1096/2002, Kurbanov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 6 November 2003, para. 7.7; No. 1044/2002, Shukurova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, para. 8.6; No. 1276/2004, Idieva v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 31 March 2009, para. 9.7; No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, para. 9.11; and No. 1545/2007, Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 25 July 2011, para. 6.5.