CCPR/C/122/D/2252/2013 7.10 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that the presumption of innocence was not respected regarding Ms. Muradova and her co-defendants, because she and several of her colleagues were pronounced as traitors who should be condemned by then-President Niyazov only a day after her arrest. In this respect, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence,24 as also reflected in its general comment No. 32, according to which the presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle.25 The Committee notes the author’s claims that the whole trial lasted only two hours, and that Ms. Muradova was not able to present her case. On the basis of the information before it and in the absence of any other pertinent information or argumentation from the State party, the Committee considers that the facts as presented demonstrate that the right of Ms. Muradova to be presumed innocent, as guaranteed under article 14 (2) of the Covenant, has been violated. 7.11 The Committee notes the author’s allegations regarding the violations of Ms. Muradova’s right to a fair trial under article 14 (5). In this regard, the Committee also notes that the State party has not refuted these claims. The author alleges that Ms. Muradova’s trial lasted less than two hours, that, in the beginning, the lawyer was not granted access to his client and that the lawyer, and family members, never received the written judgment of the court, which made further appeals all but impossible. The Committee recalls its consistent jurisprudence and the provisions of its general comment No. 32 that the right to have one’s conviction reviewed can only be exercised effectively if the convicted person is entitled to have access to a duly reasoned, written judgment of the trial court, and, at least in the court of first appeal where domestic law provides for several instances of appeal,26 also to other documents, such as trial transcripts, necessary to enjoy the effective exercise of the right to appeal.27 The Committee notes that Ms. Muradova — or her family members after her death — never received a copy of the written judgment of the court. In the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, it concludes that the absence of any practical possibility for Ms. Muradova or her counsel to file an appeal in the circumstances described discloses a violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant. 7.12 Having thus come to a conclusion regarding a violation of Ms. Muradova’s rights under article 14 (1) and (2), the Committee decides not to examine the claims regarding Ms. Muradova’s rights under article 14 (3) (b) and (d) separately. 8. 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 articles 6 (1) and 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3); 9 (1) and (3); 14 (1), (2) and (5); and 19, with regard to Ms. Muradova. The Committee further concluded that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 7, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated with an effective remedy in the form of full reparation. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to, inter alia, take appropriate steps to: (a) conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation into Ms. Muradova’s arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and death in custody, including, if necessary, by creating an independent commission of inquiry; (b) provide full redress to the author and other family members of Ms. Muradova, including adequate compensation and other measures of satisfaction, including rehabilitation for the name of Ms. Muradova, for the violations of her rights; and (c) provide all information regarding the investigation, including the findings of the autopsy, if one was conducted, and 24 25 26 27 10 See, for example, Gridin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997), para. 8.3; and Mwamba v. Zambia (CCPR/C/98/D/1520/2006), para. 6.5. See general comment No. 32, para. 30. See Van Hulst v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/82/D/903/1999), para. 6.4; Bailey v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/66/D/709/1996), para. 7.2; and Morrison v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/64/D/663/1995), para. 8.5. See Lumley v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/65/D/662/1995), para. 7.5.