CCPR/C/126/D/2356/2014 Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee will first consider the authors’ claims that Mr. Ismanov, upon initial arrest and detention, was tortured and otherwise mistreated, in order to force him to confess his guilt. The authors provide a detailed description of the treatment that Mr. Ismanov suffered at the hands of the police officers: he was severely beaten, hot and cold water was poured over his head, and electrocution was used as a form of torture (paras. 2.4 and 2.8). The Committee notes that, starting on 4 November 2010, and on a number of occasions thereafter, Ms. Nazhmutdinova and the lawyer of Mr. Ismanov filed numerous complaints regarding torture and mistreatment (para. 2.9). These claims were also made during the court hearings, both at first instance and on appeal (para. 2.11). The Committee also notes that Ms. Nazhmutdinova filed a complaint with the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman (para. 5.2). The State party makes no reference to allegations of torture by Mr. Ismanov during the first instance trial, only during his cassation appeal (para. 4.5), acknowledging that he complained then that he had been tortured previously. Nevertheless, the State party claims that, on 12, 19 and 27 November 2010, Mr. Ismanov was examined by medical personnel and these examinations revealed no signs of physical injury to his body. The State party also claims that, during these examinations, Mr. Ismanov stated that he had not been tortured or otherwise mistreated during his pretrial detention (para. 4.6). However, the State party does not produce any medical records to support these conclusions and does not give any details about the “thorough examination” by the General Prosecutor’s Office of the allegations of Mr. Ismanov regarding torture (para. 4.8). The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s lack of detailed response on this issue, due weight should be given to the authors’ allegations. 7.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate Mr. Ismanov’s claims of torture, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which criminal investigation and, where appropriate, consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of article 7 of the Covenant.11 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 or effectively or that any suspects were identified, despite a number of complaints from the authors, which even specifically identified a police officer as the alleged perpetrator of torture (para. 2.10). In the present case, the inquiry that was apparently conducted in 2012 yielded no results and did not lead to a full criminal investigation being initiated (paras. 4.5 and 4.8). Moreover, the State party failed to provide any information about this inquiry – who was interviewed, what were the findings, whether any medical examinations were ordered, whether the police officer who allegedly tortured Mr. Ismanov was indeed on leave between 3 and 10 November 2010 (para. 2.10) and so on. The Committee also notes that the State party did not interview Mr. Ismanov himself or his wife on the matter. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of Mr. Ismanov’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 7.4 Having concluded that, in the present case, there has been a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), the Committee decides not to examine separately the authors’ claims under articles 7 (as they relate to the conditions of detention of Mr. Ismanov), 10 (1) and 14 (3) (g). 7.5 The Committee will next consider the authors’ claims that, between 3 and 10 November 2010, Mr. Ismanov was held unlawfully, that the State party failed to inform him of the reasons for his arrest, and that he was brought before a judge only on 12 November 2010. In its response, the State party admitted that Mr. Ismanov was brought, on 3 November 2010, to the Sughd Regional Department and charged with being a member of a 11 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14; and general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18. 7