CCPR/C/112/D/1906/2009 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims under articles 7 and 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant that he was subjected to physical and psychological pressure to force him to confess his guilt and that his confession served subsequently as a basis for his conviction. The Committee also notes that those allegations have not been refuted by the State party. In that regard, the Committee recalls that once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially. 13 It further recalls that the safeguard set out in article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant must be understood in terms of the absence of any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused, with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt.14 The Committee notes that, despite numerous claims by the author that he was denied food, kept in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time and fed unknown pills and alcohol, the State party has not presented any information to demonstrate that it has conducted an effective investigation into those specific allegations. In those circumstances, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7 and 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant.15 8.3 As to the author’s claim that he was arrested on 9 January 2008, but was not brought before a judge for a review of his detention until 8 April 2009, nearly one year and three months after his arrest, the Committee notes that the State party has failed to address that allegation. While the meaning of the term “promptly” in article 9, paragraph 3, must be determined on a case-by-case basis, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 8 (1982) on the right to liberty and security of persons and its jurisprudence, pursuant to which such delays should not exceed a few days. 16 The Committee further recalls that it has recommended on numerous occasions, in the context of consideration of the reports of States parties submitted under article 40 of the Covenant, that the period of detention before a person is brought before a judge should not exceed 48 hours. 17 Any longer period of delay would require special justification to be compatible with article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.18 The Committee therefore considers the delay of nearly one year and three months before bringing the author before a judge to be incompatible with the requirement of promptness set forth in article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Accordingly, the author’s rights under article 9, paragraph 3, have been violated. 13 14 15 16 17 18 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14. See, for example, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 41; and communications No. 330/1988, Berry v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 4 July 1994, para. 11.7; No. 1033/2001, Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 21 July 2004, para. 7.4; and No. 1769/2008, Ismailov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 7.6. See, for example, general comment No. 32, para. 60; and communications No. 1401/2005, Kirpo v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 27 October 2009, para. 6.3; and No. 1545/2007, Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 25 July 2011, para. 6.2. The Committee found that, in the absence of any explanations by the State party, a delay of three days in bringing a person before a judge did not meet the requirement of promptness within the meaning of article 9, paragraph 3 (see communication No. 852/1999, Borisenko v. Hungary, Views adopted on 14 October 2002, para. 7.4). See also Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus, para. 11.3; and communication No. 1787/2008, Kovsh v. Belarus, Views adopted on 27 March 2013, paras. 7.3–7.5. See, for example, CCPR/CO/69/KWT, para. 12; CCPR/C/79/Add.89, para. 17; CCPR/C/SLV/CO/6, para. 14; and CCPR/CO/70/GAB, para. 13. See Borisenko v. Hungary, para. 7.4. See also Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted at the eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August–7 September 1990, principle 7. 9