CCPR/C/122/D/2252/2013 the death in custody, simply states that Ms. Muradova committed suicide, without supporting its position with any evidence, documentary or otherwise. 7.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the States parties, by arresting and detaining individuals, take responsibility to care for their life.10 Loss of life occurring in custody, especially when accompanied by reliable reports of a potentially unlawful death, create a presumption of arbitrary deprivation of life by State authorities, which can only be rebutted on the basis of a proper investigation that establishes the State’s compliance with its obligations11 under article 6 of the Covenant.12 7.4 The Committee notes that the State party has not presented evidence establishing that a prompt and thorough investigation took place that would rebut the author’s allegations that Ms. Muradova was killed due to the torture she sustained while in custody. In the light of the detailed information contained in the author’s submission, and the failure of the State party to provide any findings of the investigation or to provide any credible explanations for the circumstances of Ms. Muradova’s death, the Committee finds that there has been a violation13 of her rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 14 7.5 As to the claims under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (1) and 7, of the Covenant on the grounds that the State party failed in its obligation to properly investigate Ms. Muradova’s death and the allegations of torture and take appropriate remedial measures, the Committee recalls its consistent jurisprudence that criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 15 It further recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it stated that where investigations reveal violations of certain Covenant rights, such as those protected under articles 6 and 7, States parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Although the obligation to bring to justice those responsible for violations of articles 6 and 7 is an obligation of means, not of result, 16 States parties have a duty to investigate in good faith and in a prompt and thorough manner all allegations of serious violations of the Covenant made against it and its authorities. The Committee notes that, according to the information before it, the investigation into the allegations of torture and the subsequent death were not carried out promptly or effectively, and while the State party contends that Ms. Muradova committed suicide, no proof or evidence of the investigation itself has been provided. 17 The Committee considers that, in the light of the State party’s refusal to provide the results of the autopsy report, or any other documentary evidence of the investigation, the State party denied the author and Ms. Muradova an effective remedy, in violation of Ms. Muradova’s rights under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (1) and 7, and the author’s rights under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7. 7.6 The Committee observes that, although more than 10 years have elapsed since the death of Ms. Muradova, the author still does not know the exact circumstances surrounding it and the State party’s authorities have not indicted, prosecuted or brought to justice anyone in connection with the torture or custodial death. The Committee understands the continued anguish and mental stress incurred by the author, as the brother of a deceased 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 See Lantsova v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/74/D/763/1997), para. 9.2. See Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), para. 17. See Eshonov v. Uzbekistan, para. 9.2; and Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/102/D/1756/2008), para. 8.8. See Mulezi v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/81/D/962/2001), para. 5.4. See Sathasivam and Sarawathi v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/93/D/1436/2005), para. 6.2; Titiahonjo v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/91/D/1186/2003), para. 6.2; Telitsin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/80/D/888/1999), para. 7.6; and Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay (CCPR/C/17/D/84/1981), para. 9.2. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14, and its general comment No. 31, para. 18. See Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/107/D/1917,1918,1925/2009&1953/2010), para. 9.5. See Eshonov v. Uzbekistan, in which the Committee also noted the necessity of pursuing investigations through an independent commission of inquiry or similar procedure in cases of torture allegations if established investigative procedures were inadequate (para. 9.6).